Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-3-24-33
Michael A. Maslin
The article is written on the basis of author’s paper at the panel discussion “How we understand Russian philosophy” hold in the Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences. The article presents contemporary look on the problem based on the thesis of diversity as the central fundamental characteristic of the Russian philosophy. The diversity must be acknowledged as the expression of it’s sovereignty opposed to the sole normative approach. Such kind of approach based on dogmatic Marxism had been spread during Soviet period by authoritarian measures. The conception of diversity instead of Marxist oriented unification proposes variety of cognitive and hermeneutic means for knowing the treasury of Russian intellectual history. Another aspect of diversity includes multiplicity of languages used in philosophical texts besides proper Russian during the various periods. There are: Church Slavonic, Greek, Latin (XI–XVII centuries), French, English, German (XVIII–XX centuries) and various Slavic languages (XIX–XX centuries). Multiplicity of languages in Russian philosophical space could be explained mostly by political and censorial reasons. That multiplicity incorporates also high assortment of ethnic groups that took part in the elaboration of various philosophical texts. It included Greeks, Ukrainians, Moldavians, Serbs etc. Many Russian thinkers had been exiled abroad or ought to leave home country to avoid political repressions: A.I. Herzen, M.A. Bakunin, P.A. Kropotkin, N.A. Berdyaev, S.L. Frank, S.L. Karsavin, S.N. Bulgakov and others. Therefore they created their writings in abroad. Needless to mark also that some Russian thinkers born in Russia, such as A. Koyre, A. Kozhev, I. Berlin, P. Sorokin, became famous Western philosophers in emigration.
{"title":"Diversity of Russian philosophy","authors":"Michael A. Maslin","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-3-24-33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-3-24-33","url":null,"abstract":"The article is written on the basis of author’s paper at the panel discussion “How we understand Russian philosophy” hold in the Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences. The article presents contemporary look on the problem based on the thesis of diversity as the central fundamental characteristic of the Russian philosophy. The diversity must be acknowledged as the expression of it’s sovereignty opposed to the sole normative approach. Such kind of approach based on dogmatic Marxism had been spread during Soviet period by authoritarian measures. The conception of diversity instead of Marxist oriented unification proposes variety of cognitive and hermeneutic means for knowing the treasury of Russian intellectual history. Another aspect of diversity includes multiplicity of languages used in philosophical texts besides proper Russian during the various periods. There are: Church Slavonic, Greek, Latin (XI–XVII centuries), French, English, German (XVIII–XX centuries) and various Slavic languages (XIX–XX centuries). Multiplicity of languages in Russian philosophical space could be explained mostly by political and censorial reasons. That multiplicity incorporates also high assortment of ethnic groups that took part in the elaboration of various philosophical texts. It included Greeks, Ukrainians, Moldavians, Serbs etc. Many Russian thinkers had been exiled abroad or ought to leave home country to avoid political repressions: A.I. Herzen, M.A. Bakunin, P.A. Kropotkin, N.A. Berdyaev, S.L. Frank, S.L. Karsavin, S.N. Bulgakov and others. Therefore they created their writings in abroad. Needless to mark also that some Russian thinkers born in Russia, such as A. Koyre, A. Kozhev, I. Berlin, P. Sorokin, became famous Western philosophers in emigration.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":"129 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135710279","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-01-01DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-3-178-194
Maksim V. Gavrilov, Artem T. Iunusov
Thomas M. Scanlon is one of the most prominent modern moral philosophers, and his theory of moral responsibility is one of the most influential theories of this kind in modern ethics. In the present article we set out the main features of this theory and then deal in detail with one of the problems this theory faces, the moral luck cases. Despite several plausible approaches to this problem being available within the framework of theories of broadly Scanlonian type, Scanlon himself seems to choose none of them. So, in spite of his own claims, his theory (at least in its form that he himself defends) seems to fail to solve this problem. However, this could arguably not be counted as a decisive argument against this theory, given that all the other modern non-revisionary theories of moral responsibility fare no better in dealing with this problem.
{"title":"T.M. Scanlon’s account of responsibility and the problem of moral luck","authors":"Maksim V. Gavrilov, Artem T. Iunusov","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-3-178-194","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-3-178-194","url":null,"abstract":"Thomas M. Scanlon is one of the most prominent modern moral philosophers, and his theory of moral responsibility is one of the most influential theories of this kind in modern ethics. In the present article we set out the main features of this theory and then deal in detail with one of the problems this theory faces, the moral luck cases. Despite several plausible approaches to this problem being available within the framework of theories of broadly Scanlonian type, Scanlon himself seems to choose none of them. So, in spite of his own claims, his theory (at least in its form that he himself defends) seems to fail to solve this problem. However, this could arguably not be counted as a decisive argument against this theory, given that all the other modern non-revisionary theories of moral responsibility fare no better in dealing with this problem.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":"537 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135710282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-29DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-61-68
N. Kasavina
This paper is a full version of the author’s talk at “Procedural Logic and Philosophy of Consciousness”, a discussion dedicated to A.V. Smirnov’s book “The Logic of Meaning as a Philosophy of Consciousness: An Invitation to Reflection” (2021). The proposed content can be viewed as a co-reflection on the key concepts of the logical-semantic concept of consciousness: coherence, integrity, constriction, extension as the foundations and methods of conceptualization in their existential perspective. It is stressed that the logical-semantic approach of A.V. Smirnov reveals new facets in the understanding of philosophical rationality, personal and cultural subjectivity, experience, consciousness and their formation. To demonstrate the general philosophical, methodological status of the system of concepts introduced by the author, analogies are drawn with the understanding of existential experience as a constriction of meaning-forming experiences that are unfolded by the subject in communication, creativity, self-understanding. The concepts that have received a conceptual justification in the works of A.V. Smirnov bring the origins of experience to another level of comprehension, in accordance with which the spectrum of understanding of human reflexive capabilities also changes. If we “start with integrity”, as the author advises us, then the idea of recursiveness of experience as a pulsating process of comprehension and self-reflection in the process of human interaction with the world or his “flickering” being-in-the-world is strengthened and acquires new angles. Of particular importance here is the very style of author’s reflection, which is associated with the revision of established philosophical categories and their interpretations, the departure from the usual interpretations to discover one’s own philosophical language: one’s own – both in terms of the individual author’s approach and in aspects of the formation of the modern domestic philosophical tradition.
{"title":"On integrity, its constriction and extension","authors":"N. Kasavina","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-61-68","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-61-68","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is a full version of the author’s talk at “Procedural Logic and Philosophy of Consciousness”, a discussion dedicated to A.V. Smirnov’s book “The Logic of Meaning as a Philosophy of Consciousness: An Invitation to Reflection” (2021). The proposed content can be viewed as a co-reflection on the key concepts of the logical-semantic concept of consciousness: coherence, integrity, constriction, extension as the foundations and methods of conceptualization in their existential perspective. It is stressed that the logical-semantic approach of A.V. Smirnov reveals new facets in the understanding of philosophical rationality, personal and cultural subjectivity, experience, consciousness and their formation. To demonstrate the general philosophical, methodological status of the system of concepts introduced by the author, analogies are drawn with the understanding of existential experience as a constriction of meaning-forming experiences that are unfolded by the subject in communication, creativity, self-understanding. The concepts that have received a conceptual justification in the works of A.V. Smirnov bring the origins of experience to another level of comprehension, in accordance with which the spectrum of understanding of human reflexive capabilities also changes. If we “start with integrity”, as the author advises us, then the idea of recursiveness of experience as a pulsating process of comprehension and self-reflection in the process of human interaction with the world or his “flickering” being-in-the-world is strengthened and acquires new angles. Of particular importance here is the very style of author’s reflection, which is associated with the revision of established philosophical categories and their interpretations, the departure from the usual interpretations to discover one’s own philosophical language: one’s own – both in terms of the individual author’s approach and in aspects of the formation of the modern domestic philosophical tradition.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48336610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-29DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-152-164
V. Bazhanov
The aim of the paper is to analyze the formation and the main traits of new communicative spaces in the form of “epistemic echo-bubbles” and “echo-cameras”. Their emergence is associated with a transdisciplinary type of scientific revolution. Among the results of this revolution is the Internet and various social networks. Their popularity among different strata of the population makes these networks are not just mass phenomena, but effective tools for communication and influence on the views spread in society and shared by many individuals. The mechanisms of “epistemic echo-bubbles” and “echo-chambers” are explored and described. The fundamental differences in their functioning are emphasized, namely, that “epistemic echo-bubbles” are formed due to the similarity of people’s views (in the broad sense of life, including political life), and the emotions accompanying these views, so that subjects with different views and emotions are simply “not heard” within the boundaries of the echo-bubbles. Echo-chambers are understood to be actually closed communicative spaces formed by bringing together people with similar views (in the broad sense of life, including political life) and emotions accompanying these views. Subjects with different views are deliberately not allowed into these spaces, their views are discredited and “exposed” by special methods and techniques. Echo chambers are built on the rigid principle of distinguishing “friend” from “foe”, exercising rigid epistemic control over the state of minds and forming special structures of countering and exposing the authoritative opinions of opposition representatives. Examples of “echo-bubbles” and “echo-chambers” from modern political life (mainly in the USA) are given. The genesis of “echo-bubbles” and “echo-chambers” is associated with the phenomenon of post-truth and the transformation of language, which began to occur around the middle of the 19th century and which consists of an increase in the specific age of emotive components and a tendency to shift interest from collective action to individual activity.
{"title":"Cognitive mechanisms in the era of information: “echo-bubbles” and “echo-chambers”","authors":"V. Bazhanov","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-152-164","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-152-164","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of the paper is to analyze the formation and the main traits of new communicative spaces in the form of “epistemic echo-bubbles” and “echo-cameras”. Their emergence is associated with a transdisciplinary type of scientific revolution. Among the results of this revolution is the Internet and various social networks. Their popularity among different strata of the population makes these networks are not just mass phenomena, but effective tools for communication and influence on the views spread in society and shared by many individuals. The mechanisms of “epistemic echo-bubbles” and “echo-chambers” are explored and described. The fundamental differences in their functioning are emphasized, namely, that “epistemic echo-bubbles” are formed due to the similarity of people’s views (in the broad sense of life, including political life), and the emotions accompanying these views, so that subjects with different views and emotions are simply “not heard” within the boundaries of the echo-bubbles. Echo-chambers are understood to be actually closed communicative spaces formed by bringing together people with similar views (in the broad sense of life, including political life) and emotions accompanying these views. Subjects with different views are deliberately not allowed into these spaces, their views are discredited and “exposed” by special methods and techniques. Echo chambers are built on the rigid principle of distinguishing “friend” from “foe”, exercising rigid epistemic control over the state of minds and forming special structures of countering and exposing the authoritative opinions of opposition representatives. Examples of “echo-bubbles” and “echo-chambers” from modern political life (mainly in the USA) are given. The genesis of “echo-bubbles” and “echo-chambers” is associated with the phenomenon of post-truth and the transformation of language, which began to occur around the middle of the 19th century and which consists of an increase in the specific age of emotive components and a tendency to shift interest from collective action to individual activity.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43538482","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-29DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-5-15
S. Boroday
The article is an extended version of the paper for the round table discussion “Process Logic and Philosophy of Consciousness” devoted to the key ideas of A.V. Smirnov. The paper deals with two topics: the problem of logical and the problem of the connection between deep logic and linguistic-specific cognitive development. The author criticizes the widespread reduction of “logical” to university logic and proposes to understand A.V. Smirnov’s logic-sense theory as a program of analysis of the intuitions and procedures underlying particular kinds of logic. The distinction between substantive logic and process logic, put forward within this theory, is analyzed in the light of schema theory. The article argues the following: 1) an essential contribution to our cognitive development is made by innate, as well as sensorimotor schemas formed in the process of ontogenesis and cultural learning; 2) they are proto-representations, which have immanent logic (logical visibility), multimodality and automaticity; 3) the difference between substantive logic and process logic, is due to the dominance of one of the schemas (container vs. action) due to acquisition of language and other cultural practices; 4) this distinction is not only ontogenetic but also permanent, i.e. it is maintained in real time through implicit verbalizations, or “inner speech”; 5) the historical appearance of these schemes in language and cultural practices and the dominance of one of them is due to the specifics of human corporality and its embodiment in structurally organized reality.
{"title":"Deep logic and the problem of schematization","authors":"S. Boroday","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-5-15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-5-15","url":null,"abstract":"The article is an extended version of the paper for the round table discussion “Process Logic and Philosophy of Consciousness” devoted to the key ideas of A.V. Smirnov. The paper deals with two topics: the problem of logical and the problem of the connection between deep logic and linguistic-specific cognitive development. The author criticizes the widespread reduction of “logical” to university logic and proposes to understand A.V. Smirnov’s logic-sense theory as a program of analysis of the intuitions and procedures underlying particular kinds of logic. The distinction between substantive logic and process logic, put forward within this theory, is analyzed in the light of schema theory. The article argues the following: 1) an essential contribution to our cognitive development is made by innate, as well as sensorimotor schemas formed in the process of ontogenesis and cultural learning; 2) they are proto-representations, which have immanent logic (logical visibility), multimodality and automaticity; 3) the difference between substantive logic and process logic, is due to the dominance of one of the schemas (container vs. action) due to acquisition of language and other cultural practices; 4) this distinction is not only ontogenetic but also permanent, i.e. it is maintained in real time through implicit verbalizations, or “inner speech”; 5) the historical appearance of these schemes in language and cultural practices and the dominance of one of them is due to the specifics of human corporality and its embodiment in structurally organized reality.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43887427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-29DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-26-34
Lora Ryskeldiyeva
Being a supporter of the “Logic of Smysl” approach (LS), the author is highlighting four its main aspects in assurance that they can increase the number of such supporters. First, it responds to the searches being carried out in European culture and to serious and multifaceted criticism of academic philosophy. So, it has the potential to overcome this crisis on the path to discovering Smysl as a real “thing” (res), as well as to overcome the notorious and bored dichotomy of analytical and hermeneutic approaches. Secondly, the philosophy proceeding from the LS starts from the very beginnings of thinking, from the metaphysical idea of Wholeness-Smysl, comes to socio-political implications, thus following the Russian traditions of integral, whole knowledge. Thirdly, LS, preserving the problem of consciousness as a problem, fundamental and peculiar to modernity, can become a complex of new researches, leading cognitive science to the study of other ways of thinking of the world. Fourthly, the author sees in LS an ethical project: as a goal it is reviving and re-interpreting the well-known Russian philosophy ideal of all-humanity, taking into account the real otherness of the Other and using the material of philosophical Oriental studies – it is the ideal of friendship and brotherhood.
{"title":"In defence of Smysl and its logic","authors":"Lora Ryskeldiyeva","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-26-34","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-26-34","url":null,"abstract":"Being a supporter of the “Logic of Smysl” approach (LS), the author is highlighting four its main aspects in assurance that they can increase the number of such supporters. First, it responds to the searches being carried out in European culture and to serious and multifaceted criticism of academic philosophy. So, it has the potential to overcome this crisis on the path to discovering Smysl as a real “thing” (res), as well as to overcome the notorious and bored dichotomy of analytical and hermeneutic approaches. Secondly, the philosophy proceeding from the LS starts from the very beginnings of thinking, from the metaphysical idea of Wholeness-Smysl, comes to socio-political implications, thus following the Russian traditions of integral, whole knowledge. Thirdly, LS, preserving the problem of consciousness as a problem, fundamental and peculiar to modernity, can become a complex of new researches, leading cognitive science to the study of other ways of thinking of the world. Fourthly, the author sees in LS an ethical project: as a goal it is reviving and re-interpreting the well-known Russian philosophy ideal of all-humanity, taking into account the real otherness of the Other and using the material of philosophical Oriental studies – it is the ideal of friendship and brotherhood.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47755748","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-29DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-136-151
R. Platonov
The aim of the paper is to reveal the main methodological problems of neuroethics in the course of its development as an interdisciplinary approach to the study of morality, as well as to propose a critical analysis of the results of cognitive science (neurophysiology) in the context of moral philosophy. For this purpose, the author analyzes the modern subject field of neuroethical research from the point of view of philosophical ethics and discusses the main conceptions in which the results of neurophysiological studies of the moral decision-making process are summarized. The author describes a general division of the subject field in terms of “neuroethics No. 1” (a part of bioethics) and “neuroethics No. 2” (a proclaimed part of moral philosophy). The object of research of this article is neuroethics No. 2. It is argued that in neuroethics No. 2 the conceptualization of the moral decision-making process is carried out everywhere in accordance with the scheme of “double processes”: intuitive / quick / associative and discursive / slow / calculation-based. Even if the role of intuition is denied, duality is still preserved. This is so because emotions, as an extra-rational part of the psyche, are considered the basis of a quick decision. It is shown that a non-reflexive borrowing of concepts and conceptions of moral philosophy is carried out both at the level of formation of the subject of research and at the level of method. The qualitatively meaningful meaning of concepts is blurred or substituted. Such a language transition outside the boundaries of the subject area of neurophysiology only simulates the presence of interdisciplinarity. The research remains in the frames of the study of cognitive processes, without their moral component. It is concluded that for the development of neuroethics as an interdisciplinary direction, we need to obtain a synthesis of the meanings developed in the course of cultural development and of the data on human biological development. Further, in accordance with such a synthetic subject we need to adjust the research method, also we must avoid substituting the concepts of philosophical ethics.
{"title":"Neurophysiology and morality: the problem of interdisciplinary research","authors":"R. Platonov","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-136-151","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-136-151","url":null,"abstract":"The aim of the paper is to reveal the main methodological problems of neuroethics in the course of its development as an interdisciplinary approach to the study of morality, as well as to propose a critical analysis of the results of cognitive science (neurophysiology) in the context of moral philosophy. For this purpose, the author analyzes the modern subject field of neuroethical research from the point of view of philosophical ethics and discusses the main conceptions in which the results of neurophysiological studies of the moral decision-making process are summarized. The author describes a general division of the subject field in terms of “neuroethics No. 1” (a part of bioethics) and “neuroethics No. 2” (a proclaimed part of moral philosophy). The object of research of this article is neuroethics No. 2. It is argued that in neuroethics No. 2 the conceptualization of the moral decision-making process is carried out everywhere in accordance with the scheme of “double processes”: intuitive / quick / associative and discursive / slow / calculation-based. Even if the role of intuition is denied, duality is still preserved. This is so because emotions, as an extra-rational part of the psyche, are considered the basis of a quick decision. It is shown that a non-reflexive borrowing of concepts and conceptions of moral philosophy is carried out both at the level of formation of the subject of research and at the level of method. The qualitatively meaningful meaning of concepts is blurred or substituted. Such a language transition outside the boundaries of the subject area of neurophysiology only simulates the presence of interdisciplinarity. The research remains in the frames of the study of cognitive processes, without their moral component. It is concluded that for the development of neuroethics as an interdisciplinary direction, we need to obtain a synthesis of the meanings developed in the course of cultural development and of the data on human biological development. Further, in accordance with such a synthetic subject we need to adjust the research method, also we must avoid substituting the concepts of philosophical ethics.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46073544","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-29DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-123-135
E. Takho-Godi
The paper discusses the perception of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s work by Yuly Aykhenvald (1872–1928), a famous literary critic of the first quarter of the twentieth century. It shows that Aykhenvald’s attitude toward Dostoevsky had undergone a certain evolution from a rejection via demands to “overcome” him to his recognition as one of the “spiritual leaders” of the thinking Russia alongside Pushkin and Leo Tolstoy. Yet Aykhenvald still had some controversy with Dostoevsky, above all over philosophy of history. The question of Russia’s destiny and its relation to the West is addressed by Aykhenvald following the same algorithm that is used in the article by Thomas G. Masaryk (to which Aykhenvald was reacting), namely through the prism of and in dispute with Dostoevsky. The paper proves that Aykhenvald focuses not on interpreting or analyzing Masaryk’s ideas, but on refuting the views of the Eurasianists and that Eurasian ideas are the very philosophical context that serves as a background for his argument with Dostoevsky. In refuting Dostoevsky’s views on Europe and justifying his own historiosophic view of the entire world as a unified Europe, Aykhenvald eventually comes to the paradox that Dostoevsky, being the “denier of Europe”, is the “intercultural cross-link” that ties Europe and Russia even more closely together. In this way, Dostoevsky’s work turns out to be a starting point for Aykhenvald’s own historiosophic framework, which brings him closer to both Russian interpreters of the Silver Age (Vikentii V. Veresaev) and the European philosophical and political tradition (Thomas G. Masaryk).
{"title":"Russia and Europe: Yuly Aykhenvald on Fyodor Dostoevsky’s historiosophy","authors":"E. Takho-Godi","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-123-135","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-123-135","url":null,"abstract":"The paper discusses the perception of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s work by Yuly Aykhenvald (1872–1928), a famous literary critic of the first quarter of the twentieth century. It shows that Aykhenvald’s attitude toward Dostoevsky had undergone a certain evolution from a rejection via demands to “overcome” him to his recognition as one of the “spiritual leaders” of the thinking Russia alongside Pushkin and Leo Tolstoy. Yet Aykhenvald still had some controversy with Dostoevsky, above all over philosophy of history. The question of Russia’s destiny and its relation to the West is addressed by Aykhenvald following the same algorithm that is used in the article by Thomas G. Masaryk (to which Aykhenvald was reacting), namely through the prism of and in dispute with Dostoevsky. The paper proves that Aykhenvald focuses not on interpreting or analyzing Masaryk’s ideas, but on refuting the views of the Eurasianists and that Eurasian ideas are the very philosophical context that serves as a background for his argument with Dostoevsky. In refuting Dostoevsky’s views on Europe and justifying his own historiosophic view of the entire world as a unified Europe, Aykhenvald eventually comes to the paradox that Dostoevsky, being the “denier of Europe”, is the “intercultural cross-link” that ties Europe and Russia even more closely together. In this way, Dostoevsky’s work turns out to be a starting point for Aykhenvald’s own historiosophic framework, which brings him closer to both Russian interpreters of the Silver Age (Vikentii V. Veresaev) and the European philosophical and political tradition (Thomas G. Masaryk).","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46589714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-29DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-88-97
V. Shalack
The article presents a brief analysis of how the existence of various logics became possible. This is shown on the example of such well-known logical theories as syllogistics, temporal, multivalued, intuitionistic, paraconsistent and quantum logics. Each of them arose not on someone’s whim, but to solve specific problems. They are based on the most general ontological assumptions about the subject area under study. In formal logic ontological assumptions are refined in the concept of a model structure. Since it is impossible to talk about logic in isolation from the language used, the most general epistemic assumptions about the nature of the relationship of linguistic expressions to those objects of extralinguistic reality that they represent are also accepted. One of the most important of these relationships is the concept of the truth of sentences, which was first formulated by Plato and Aristotle. Taking certain ontological and epistemic assumptions depending on the problem being solved, we obtain different logics. Process logic is primarily characterized by special ontological assumptions that are fundamentally different from the assumptions of other currently existing logics. The ontology of processes is an ontology of developing processes, not things. Historically, it was most vividly described in the writings of Heraclitus. In the overwhelming majority of modern approaches to the description of processes, we see attempts to reduce them to sequences of states, which devalues the very concept of a process, just as a cinematic picture of the flow of time devalues the concept of time. Since logics are built on the basis of various ontological and epistemic assumptions, they are inherently theories of these accepted assumptions, and not universal reasoning tools that don’t depend on the characteristics of the study area and the categories of linguistic expressions. Universal logic is possible if one rises from the level of specific languages to a higher level of sign theory.
{"title":"On the origins of logical pluralism","authors":"V. Shalack","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-88-97","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-88-97","url":null,"abstract":"The article presents a brief analysis of how the existence of various logics became possible. This is shown on the example of such well-known logical theories as syllogistics, temporal, multivalued, intuitionistic, paraconsistent and quantum logics. Each of them arose not on someone’s whim, but to solve specific problems. They are based on the most general ontological assumptions about the subject area under study. In formal logic ontological assumptions are refined in the concept of a model structure. Since it is impossible to talk about logic in isolation from the language used, the most general epistemic assumptions about the nature of the relationship of linguistic expressions to those objects of extralinguistic reality that they represent are also accepted. One of the most important of these relationships is the concept of the truth of sentences, which was first formulated by Plato and Aristotle. Taking certain ontological and epistemic assumptions depending on the problem being solved, we obtain different logics. Process logic is primarily characterized by special ontological assumptions that are fundamentally different from the assumptions of other currently existing logics. The ontology of processes is an ontology of developing processes, not things. Historically, it was most vividly described in the writings of Heraclitus. In the overwhelming majority of modern approaches to the description of processes, we see attempts to reduce them to sequences of states, which devalues the very concept of a process, just as a cinematic picture of the flow of time devalues the concept of time. Since logics are built on the basis of various ontological and epistemic assumptions, they are inherently theories of these accepted assumptions, and not universal reasoning tools that don’t depend on the characteristics of the study area and the categories of linguistic expressions. Universal logic is possible if one rises from the level of specific languages to a higher level of sign theory.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49380431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-29DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-43-53
V. Solondaev
Process logic described by A. V. Smirnov is based on materials from the arab-muslim culture as a whole. Process logic is contrasted with the substance logic which forms the foundation of European culture as a whole. It has been proven theoretically that any situation could be interpreted using any logic of sense. The article provides an empirical illustration of the use of the process logic in a consultation of a preschool educational institution psychologist on problems connected with a mental disorder of one of the pupils of the institution. On the basis of this single example it is demonstrated how process logic allows the shift of the focus of attention retaining the rational basis of the actions. Situations relating to the health are difficult to describe using substantial logic as the course of the disease depends on the actions of the patient and on the actions of people in his/her immediate surroundings. This limits the usability of the law of identity which is fundamental to substantial logic. The disease is “not that very same” disease – it is changing as the result of the actions. This creates a persistent uncertainty which is of remarkable importance in pediatric healthcare, where the actions of the parents are complicating the situation much more significantly compared to the adult healthcare. In contrast to this, process logic allows us to observe the course of the ailment as such, as being a process, which eliminates the uncertainty. The process determines the actions regarding the ailment as well as their evaluation. If an action is changing the course of the ailment to the better we consider it successful. In the case described, the logic of understanding the situation used by the consultant has changed the client’s logic of understanding the situation. The person stopped seeing the problem as something rigid and insurmountable. The change of the logic didn’t require any special training of the client. It follows that the shift of understanding from the substance logic to the process logic can help to solve practical pediatric problems.
{"title":"Process logic in the practice of pediatrics care: a case study","authors":"V. Solondaev","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-43-53","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-43-53","url":null,"abstract":"Process logic described by A. V. Smirnov is based on materials from the arab-muslim culture as a whole. Process logic is contrasted with the substance logic which forms the foundation of European culture as a whole. It has been proven theoretically that any situation could be interpreted using any logic of sense. The article provides an empirical illustration of the use of the process logic in a consultation of a preschool educational institution psychologist on problems connected with a mental disorder of one of the pupils of the institution. On the basis of this single example it is demonstrated how process logic allows the shift of the focus of attention retaining the rational basis of the actions. Situations relating to the health are difficult to describe using substantial logic as the course of the disease depends on the actions of the patient and on the actions of people in his/her immediate surroundings. This limits the usability of the law of identity which is fundamental to substantial logic. The disease is “not that very same” disease – it is changing as the result of the actions. This creates a persistent uncertainty which is of remarkable importance in pediatric healthcare, where the actions of the parents are complicating the situation much more significantly compared to the adult healthcare. In contrast to this, process logic allows us to observe the course of the ailment as such, as being a process, which eliminates the uncertainty. The process determines the actions regarding the ailment as well as their evaluation. If an action is changing the course of the ailment to the better we consider it successful. In the case described, the logic of understanding the situation used by the consultant has changed the client’s logic of understanding the situation. The person stopped seeing the problem as something rigid and insurmountable. The change of the logic didn’t require any special training of the client. It follows that the shift of understanding from the substance logic to the process logic can help to solve practical pediatric problems.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46388362","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：