Pub Date : 2022-11-29DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-165-180
D. Maslov
The paper analyzes the criticism of the notion “nature of things” within the pyrrhonian sceptical tradition. I begin with a brief exposition of two contemporary epistemological approaches that sets up the boundaries of the discussion: normative and descriptive ones. However, this dichotomy is not strict. The notion of “nature of things” implicitly underlies the discussion, as I argue, as a normative view about the true reality and its formal characteristics. These metaphysical requirements have to be fulfilled in knowledge. This alone demonstrates a tight connection between these disciplines. Pyrrho’s rejection of the nature of things can be interpreted in terms of underdetermination of the world, which allows various interpretations according to the rule “no more” (ou mallon). This principle states that there is no ultimate ground for the individuation of things. This principle had been used before Pyrrho and justifies his denial of the existence of the nature of things, for to every single thing can be ascribed contradictory predicates. They show themselves in a contradictory way. Then, we point out to the breakdown in the Pyrrhonian tradition and the fact that the notion of nature of things was borrowed and used as a pillar of the revived Pyrrhonism (esp. in Sextus Empiricus). He used this term referring to the unchangeable, invariable and eternal constitution of things. Sextus differs from Pyrrho on by his suspension of judgement about the existence of the nature of things. Although Sextus developed an epistemological critique of ancient theories of knowledge and did not investigate this notion, it was pivotal for him to reach the suspension of judgement. It allowed him not to assert any statement as corresponding to or revealing the properties of things by nature. As a result, Pyrrhonian usage of the notion nature of things provided a persuasive and influential criticism against the normative stance and led to its moderation and pragmatization.
{"title":"Pyrrhonian criticism of the notion of “nature of things”: epistemology and metaphysics","authors":"D. Maslov","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-165-180","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-165-180","url":null,"abstract":"The paper analyzes the criticism of the notion “nature of things” within the pyrrhonian sceptical tradition. I begin with a brief exposition of two contemporary epistemological approaches that sets up the boundaries of the discussion: normative and descriptive ones. However, this dichotomy is not strict. The notion of “nature of things” implicitly underlies the discussion, as I argue, as a normative view about the true reality and its formal characteristics. These metaphysical requirements have to be fulfilled in knowledge. This alone demonstrates a tight connection between these disciplines. Pyrrho’s rejection of the nature of things can be interpreted in terms of underdetermination of the world, which allows various interpretations according to the rule “no more” (ou mallon). This principle states that there is no ultimate ground for the individuation of things. This principle had been used before Pyrrho and justifies his denial of the existence of the nature of things, for to every single thing can be ascribed contradictory predicates. They show themselves in a contradictory way. Then, we point out to the breakdown in the Pyrrhonian tradition and the fact that the notion of nature of things was borrowed and used as a pillar of the revived Pyrrhonism (esp. in Sextus Empiricus). He used this term referring to the unchangeable, invariable and eternal constitution of things. Sextus differs from Pyrrho on by his suspension of judgement about the existence of the nature of things. Although Sextus developed an epistemological critique of ancient theories of knowledge and did not investigate this notion, it was pivotal for him to reach the suspension of judgement. It allowed him not to assert any statement as corresponding to or revealing the properties of things by nature. As a result, Pyrrhonian usage of the notion nature of things provided a persuasive and influential criticism against the normative stance and led to its moderation and pragmatization.","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":"42082029","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: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-35-42
A. Paribok
The article discusses some logical, semantic and metaphysical consequences or correlations with the introduced typology of word order in verbal and nominal sentences, which in the European tradition represent speech patterns used in judgments. The combinatorics of word order gives four variants, of which three are actually represented by native languages of distinctive philosophical traditions. It is shown that the Western word order predisposes the semantic intuition in favor of substantialism, the Arabic variety (in verbal sentences) is in conformity with the process logic of sense discovered and described by A.V. Smirnov. The Sanskrit word order in predication predisposes to the understanding of thinking as a natural transition from one object to another, whereas the ontological type of the object is not predetermined.
{"title":"On the difference in the formalization of logic by the Ancient Indians and Ancient Greeks in connection with the difference in word order under predication","authors":"A. Paribok","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-35-42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-35-42","url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses some logical, semantic and metaphysical consequences or correlations with the introduced typology of word order in verbal and nominal sentences, which in the European tradition represent speech patterns used in judgments. The combinatorics of word order gives four variants, of which three are actually represented by native languages of distinctive philosophical traditions. It is shown that the Western word order predisposes the semantic intuition in favor of substantialism, the Arabic variety (in verbal sentences) is in conformity with the process logic of sense discovered and described by A.V. Smirnov. The Sanskrit word order in predication predisposes to the understanding of thinking as a natural transition from one object to another, whereas the ontological type of the object is not predetermined.","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":"48838671","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: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-16-25
K. Pavlov-Pinus
The article discusses the concept of logic of sense – one of the key concepts in the philosophy of A.V. Smirnov. The text details the considerations expressed by the author at the round table “Process logic and philosophy of consciousness”. Unlike the formal-logical approach, the conceptual framework of which is based on the concept of a formal system, the theoretical status of the “logic of sense” is fully manifested only in the context of the concept of culture. The logical form corresponding to the procedures of sense-generation is dynamic, not substantial. In different cultures, it is characterized by a peculiar combination of regulatory and constitutive principles for the generation of intersubjective semantics. The necessity, which constitutes logical aspects of sense generation, manifests itself in the fact that it 1) forms the horizon of possible culture-forming conventions fixed by one or another “natural” language and their corresponding practices, and 2) separates the conventions themselves from their consequences, which are already not conventional.
{"title":"The logical meaning of the concept of “logic of sense”","authors":"K. Pavlov-Pinus","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-16-25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-16-25","url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses the concept of logic of sense – one of the key concepts in the philosophy of A.V. Smirnov. The text details the considerations expressed by the author at the round table “Process logic and philosophy of consciousness”. Unlike the formal-logical approach, the conceptual framework of which is based on the concept of a formal system, the theoretical status of the “logic of sense” is fully manifested only in the context of the concept of culture. The logical form corresponding to the procedures of sense-generation is dynamic, not substantial. In different cultures, it is characterized by a peculiar combination of regulatory and constitutive principles for the generation of intersubjective semantics. The necessity, which constitutes logical aspects of sense generation, manifests itself in the fact that it 1) forms the horizon of possible culture-forming conventions fixed by one or another “natural” language and their corresponding practices, and 2) separates the conventions themselves from their consequences, which are already not conventional.","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":"48389535","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: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-78-87
R. Pskhu
The article suggests specific grammatical features of some languages of the leading philosophical traditions of Eurasia, which can explain some of the differences in philosophical thinking that exist in these traditions. In particular, the use of Genetivus Objectivus in Sanskrit, New European, Latin and Arabic languages is considered, its possible correlation with the socio-practice of cultures in which these languages are dominant is analyzed. As a theoretical preamble, which allows not only to raise, but also to comprehend the designated problems, the author refers to the logical-semantic theory proposed by the Russian philosopher and arabist Andrei V. Smirnov (b. 1958), which deals with subject-predicate constructions in substantive and procedural logic, the problems of correlation of language and thinking, as well as the commensurability of the bases rationality in different philosophical cultures. Analyzing the peculiarities of the use of the so-called object genitive case (Genetivus Objectivus) in different linguistic traditions, the author comes to the conclusion that it is the grammar of a language that often determines the peculiarities of a person’s thinking, which in turn are reflected in the socio-practice of a particular culture. Using the example of the Sanskrit fragment “Śrībhāṣya” by the Indian medieval philosopher Rāmānuja (XI–XII), in which the compound word (brahmajijñāsā) is proposed to be read as a combination of two nouns in the construction of Genetivus Objectivus (brahmano jijñāsā) (with reference to the grammar of Pāṇini), the author of the article shows the peculiarity of Sanskrit-speaking thinking in comparison with New European, Arabic and Latin languages. This feature is understood in the light of the definitions offered by philosophical traditions to understand the nature of God or the Absolute Principle.
{"title":"Possible correlation of Genetivus Objectivus semantics with socio-practice in different philosophical cultures","authors":"R. Pskhu","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-78-87","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-78-87","url":null,"abstract":"The article suggests specific grammatical features of some languages of the leading philosophical traditions of Eurasia, which can explain some of the differences in philosophical thinking that exist in these traditions. In particular, the use of Genetivus Objectivus in Sanskrit, New European, Latin and Arabic languages is considered, its possible correlation with the socio-practice of cultures in which these languages are dominant is analyzed. As a theoretical preamble, which allows not only to raise, but also to comprehend the designated problems, the author refers to the logical-semantic theory proposed by the Russian philosopher and arabist Andrei V. Smirnov (b. 1958), which deals with subject-predicate constructions in substantive and procedural logic, the problems of correlation of language and thinking, as well as the commensurability of the bases rationality in different philosophical cultures. Analyzing the peculiarities of the use of the so-called object genitive case (Genetivus Objectivus) in different linguistic traditions, the author comes to the conclusion that it is the grammar of a language that often determines the peculiarities of a person’s thinking, which in turn are reflected in the socio-practice of a particular culture. Using the example of the Sanskrit fragment “Śrībhāṣya” by the Indian medieval philosopher Rāmānuja (XI–XII), in which the compound word (brahmajijñāsā) is proposed to be read as a combination of two nouns in the construction of Genetivus Objectivus (brahmano jijñāsā) (with reference to the grammar of Pāṇini), the author of the article shows the peculiarity of Sanskrit-speaking thinking in comparison with New European, Arabic and Latin languages. This feature is understood in the light of the definitions offered by philosophical traditions to understand the nature of God or the Absolute Principle.","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":"45163674","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: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-54-60
A. Danilov
The article considers the possibility of new multi-civilizational integrity in the context of the concept outlined in the new monograph by A.V. Smirnov “The Logic of Sense as a Philosophy of Mind”, where the author argues that a multipolar world is possible as stable only as a multi-civilizational one and calls into question three currently dominant theses in the humanities. They are: 1) globalization is a natural process; 2) globalization of economic processes must necessarily be accompanied by cultural and civilizational globalization; 3) the civilizational project, which is implemented by the West in its historical development and taken as the basis of globalization, is universal in its essence and is the best socio – political and economic model for the whole world. Historical experience and analysis of modern practice show that new multi-civilizational integrity will not work as long as the Western project is considered as the only possible prospect for modern civilization, and its ideals and values are presented as a role model. At the same time, the implementation of the value orientations of the consumer society outside Europe generates new crises and contradictions, not fitting into the national and cultural characteristics of other countries. Therefore, the way out to the points of growth of a new civilizational integrity should be not found in the West at all, but should be explored in those cultures that have preserved the traditional ground under the influence of modernization processes. Without ignoring the centuries-old experience of the development of Greek-Latin-European culture, A.V. Smirnov argues, it is necessary to conduct a study of the logic of non-Western cultures, which currently constitutes an important task of the theoretical development of the project of a multi-civilizational world.
{"title":"On the way to the multicivilizational integrity","authors":"A. Danilov","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-54-60","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-54-60","url":null,"abstract":"The article considers the possibility of new multi-civilizational integrity in the context of the concept outlined in the new monograph by A.V. Smirnov “The Logic of Sense as a Philosophy of Mind”, where the author argues that a multipolar world is possible as stable only as a multi-civilizational one and calls into question three currently dominant theses in the humanities. They are: 1) globalization is a natural process; 2) globalization of economic processes must necessarily be accompanied by cultural and civilizational globalization; 3) the civilizational project, which is implemented by the West in its historical development and taken as the basis of globalization, is universal in its essence and is the best socio – political and economic model for the whole world. Historical experience and analysis of modern practice show that new multi-civilizational integrity will not work as long as the Western project is considered as the only possible prospect for modern civilization, and its ideals and values are presented as a role model. At the same time, the implementation of the value orientations of the consumer society outside Europe generates new crises and contradictions, not fitting into the national and cultural characteristics of other countries. Therefore, the way out to the points of growth of a new civilizational integrity should be not found in the West at all, but should be explored in those cultures that have preserved the traditional ground under the influence of modernization processes. Without ignoring the centuries-old experience of the development of Greek-Latin-European culture, A.V. Smirnov argues, it is necessary to conduct a study of the logic of non-Western cultures, which currently constitutes an important task of the theoretical development of the project of a multi-civilizational world.","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":"43016519","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: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-98-107
I. Mikhailov
The paper critically examines some theses from A.V. Smirnov’s monograph ‘The Logic of Meaning as a Philosophy of Consciousness: An Invitation to Reflection’. In particular, the statement about the inability of cognitive sciences to exhaustively explain consciousness because of its de-subjectivation within their framework. It is shown that cognitive sciences are generally able to cope with the intellectual and controlling aspects of consciousness. Only its phenomenal aspect remains in question, but this is clearly not what the author of the monograph means. Further, he argues that understanding the workings of consciousness underlies the philosophical foundations of any subject. The analysis shows that if we exclude consciousness as control and the phenomenal consciousness, which are obviously irrelevant here, then the philosophical foundations of anything within this understanding are reduced either to normative requirements in the form of the logical foundations of theories, or to empirical data in the form of cognitive limitations of real subjects. Attributing rationalism and universalism to the Western philosophy as its essential properties, the author of the monograph does not take into account that rationalism as anti-empiricism has long been a kind of abandoned trend, and rationalism as a commitment to inferential procedures has also been recently challenged by some strong alternatives. Similarly, the author’s opinion of the Western philosophy of mind as the execution of the Cartesian program, which he reduces to cogito ergo sum, is disputed. This methodological tool – and the metaphysical principle as well – of Descartes is subjected to incessant attacks from representatives of various schools of Western philosophy. Moreover, it underlies not the philosophy of mind, but the epistemology of the great philosopher. Finally, the author’s concept of ‘unfolding the folded’ comes down to a kind of dialectical deduction of the empirical features of various cultures from a priori predetermined ‘subject-predicate gluings’ and ‘intuitions of integrity’, which paradoxically brings us back to Hegelian-type rationalism.
{"title":"Does consciousness cognize itself in cognitive sciences?","authors":"I. Mikhailov","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-98-107","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-98-107","url":null,"abstract":"The paper critically examines some theses from A.V. Smirnov’s monograph ‘The Logic of Meaning as a Philosophy of Consciousness: An Invitation to Reflection’. In particular, the statement about the inability of cognitive sciences to exhaustively explain consciousness because of its de-subjectivation within their framework. It is shown that cognitive sciences are generally able to cope with the intellectual and controlling aspects of consciousness. Only its phenomenal aspect remains in question, but this is clearly not what the author of the monograph means. Further, he argues that understanding the workings of consciousness underlies the philosophical foundations of any subject. The analysis shows that if we exclude consciousness as control and the phenomenal consciousness, which are obviously irrelevant here, then the philosophical foundations of anything within this understanding are reduced either to normative requirements in the form of the logical foundations of theories, or to empirical data in the form of cognitive limitations of real subjects. Attributing rationalism and universalism to the Western philosophy as its essential properties, the author of the monograph does not take into account that rationalism as anti-empiricism has long been a kind of abandoned trend, and rationalism as a commitment to inferential procedures has also been recently challenged by some strong alternatives. Similarly, the author’s opinion of the Western philosophy of mind as the execution of the Cartesian program, which he reduces to cogito ergo sum, is disputed. This methodological tool – and the metaphysical principle as well – of Descartes is subjected to incessant attacks from representatives of various schools of Western philosophy. Moreover, it underlies not the philosophy of mind, but the epistemology of the great philosopher. Finally, the author’s concept of ‘unfolding the folded’ comes down to a kind of dialectical deduction of the empirical features of various cultures from a priori predetermined ‘subject-predicate gluings’ and ‘intuitions of integrity’, which paradoxically brings us back to Hegelian-type rationalism.","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":"49538194","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: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-69-77
V. Konev
Building on A.V. Smirnov’s distinction between substantive and process logic, the author evaluates the position of S.N. Bulgakov laid out in “The Tragedy of Philosophy”. The article shows that the judgment “I am A”, which Bulgakov considers the fundamental principle of thought and the basis for defining the Self as a hypostasis, cannot be a form of defining the Self as an individual. Individuality is not defined within the framework of substantial logic (“I am A”), but defines itself within the framework of process logic (“I affirm A”). The author considers three forms of affirmation of the Self: affirmation as performativity, affirmation as negation, and affirmation as productive action. Conclusion: the being of the Self, which requires the active action of the Self itself, is the ontological basis for the existence of process logic.
{"title":"Reflection on one of the theses of S.N. Bulgakov, initiated by the idea of process logic","authors":"V. Konev","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-69-77","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-69-77","url":null,"abstract":"Building on A.V. Smirnov’s distinction between substantive and process logic, the author evaluates the position of S.N. Bulgakov laid out in “The Tragedy of Philosophy”. The article shows that the judgment “I am A”, which Bulgakov considers the fundamental principle of thought and the basis for defining the Self as a hypostasis, cannot be a form of defining the Self as an individual. Individuality is not defined within the framework of substantial logic (“I am A”), but defines itself within the framework of process logic (“I affirm A”). The author considers three forms of affirmation of the Self: affirmation as performativity, affirmation as negation, and affirmation as productive action. Conclusion: the being of the Self, which requires the active action of the Self itself, is the ontological basis for the existence of process logic.","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":"43433078","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: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-108-122
A. V. Smirnov
Short, middle and long-term objectives for the logic of sense are outlined. The short-term objective is, firstly, to sketch the logic-and-meaning map of the four big cultures of humankind (European, Arab-Muslim, South Asian and Far Eastern) producing the first description of the logics of sense manifold. This description will outline that variant of (1) power of judgment, (2) basic (indefinable) categories of the theoretical (philosophical included) discourse and (3) basic logical regulative principles that underlies that specific big culture and defines its “morphology” (Spengler) and all the stages of its epistemic chain (the most important of them being perception, speech and thought). Secondly, we need to sketch the logic-and-meaning map for the individual consciousness which is basically open to all possible kinds of the logic of sense, elaborating on the line of psychological studies developed by V.K. Solondaev. Thirdly, it is especially promising to discover the neural network parallels for the logic-and-meaning regularities of human consciousness activity and to map them. The three maps superposition is likely to suggest new interesting conclusions. The middle term objective is to develop the cognitive history of philosophy as an antipode to the analytic history of philosophy. The cognitive history of philosophy will study the development of philosophy in the big cultures and their subcultures as defined by the basic toolkit provided by the concrete variant of the logic of sense (that is, the variant of the power of judgment and of the set of basic categories and logical principles). The cognitive history of philosophy approaches the philosophical traditions of every big culture as, firstly, independent and irreducible to the philosophical discourse in any other big culture, and, secondly, as embedded in the system of that big culture and organically belonging to it. The long term objective is to make logic of sense and the cognitive history of philosophy converge to arrive at the cognitive philosophy which will discover the freedom of sense positing by virtue of mastering its regularities in full. The ‘cognitive philosophy’ is another name for the logic of sense in its completeness.
{"title":"Задачи логики смысла","authors":"A. V. Smirnov","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-108-122","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-4-108-122","url":null,"abstract":"Short, middle and long-term objectives for the logic of sense are outlined. The short-term objective is, firstly, to sketch the logic-and-meaning map of the four big cultures of humankind (European, Arab-Muslim, South Asian and Far Eastern) producing the first description of the logics of sense manifold. This description will outline that variant of (1) power of judgment, (2) basic (indefinable) categories of the theoretical (philosophical included) discourse and (3) basic logical regulative principles that underlies that specific big culture and defines its “morphology” (Spengler) and all the stages of its epistemic chain (the most important of them being perception, speech and thought). Secondly, we need to sketch the logic-and-meaning map for the individual consciousness which is basically open to all possible kinds of the logic of sense, elaborating on the line of psychological studies developed by V.K. Solondaev. Thirdly, it is especially promising to discover the neural network parallels for the logic-and-meaning regularities of human consciousness activity and to map them. The three maps superposition is likely to suggest new interesting conclusions. The middle term objective is to develop the cognitive history of philosophy as an antipode to the analytic history of philosophy. The cognitive history of philosophy will study the development of philosophy in the big cultures and their subcultures as defined by the basic toolkit provided by the concrete variant of the logic of sense (that is, the variant of the power of judgment and of the set of basic categories and logical principles). The cognitive history of philosophy approaches the philosophical traditions of every big culture as, firstly, independent and irreducible to the philosophical discourse in any other big culture, and, secondly, as embedded in the system of that big culture and organically belonging to it. The long term objective is to make logic of sense and the cognitive history of philosophy converge to arrive at the cognitive philosophy which will discover the freedom of sense positing by virtue of mastering its regularities in full. The ‘cognitive philosophy’ is another name for the logic of sense in its completeness.","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":"48051531","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 : 2022-08-29DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-3-84-99
M. G. Chistyakova, German M. Preobrazhenskiy
This article explores the changing parameters of sensibility in the context of a postanthropocentric paradigm in art. In particular, we address the mechanism of the construction of affects building on the idea of their external autonomy in art. The fundamental disconnectedness of the realm of sensuality is described in the context of object ontologies, via the modes of connectedness and conditionality that exist beyond the limits of individual experience. A generalized description of the procedures of the postanthropocentric paradigm of distributed aesthetics is provided. The article discusses the shift in the understanding of the function and autonomy of art associated with the emergence of object forms of art. The current situation in object art, in particular in total installations, suggests a different paradigm of aesthetics. The specific workings of such a paradigm are clarified on the basis of the distinction between affect and emotion proposed by Brian Massumi in his conception of the autonomy of affect. The authors conclude that in deanthropologized environments sensuality operates as a chain of distributed affects associated with the effects of increasing intensity and inhibition of intensity through forms of appropriation of affect into a chain of successive instances of sensuality. The article’s general theoretical task is to describe the operation of affect structures under conditions of object deanthropologization. The applied task of the article is to describe the mechanisms of understanding and perception of object forms of art, in particular such a form as total installation.
{"title":"The transformation of sensuality in postanthropocentric art","authors":"M. G. Chistyakova, German M. Preobrazhenskiy","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-3-84-99","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-3-84-99","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores the changing parameters of sensibility in the context of a postanthropocentric paradigm in art. In particular, we address the mechanism of the construction of affects building on the idea of their external autonomy in art. The fundamental disconnectedness of the realm of sensuality is described in the context of object ontologies, via the modes of connectedness and conditionality that exist beyond the limits of individual experience. A generalized description of the procedures of the postanthropocentric paradigm of distributed aesthetics is provided. The article discusses the shift in the understanding of the function and autonomy of art associated with the emergence of object forms of art. The current situation in object art, in particular in total installations, suggests a different paradigm of aesthetics. The specific workings of such a paradigm are clarified on the basis of the distinction between affect and emotion proposed by Brian Massumi in his conception of the autonomy of affect. The authors conclude that in deanthropologized environments sensuality operates as a chain of distributed affects associated with the effects of increasing intensity and inhibition of intensity through forms of appropriation of affect into a chain of successive instances of sensuality. The article’s general theoretical task is to describe the operation of affect structures under conditions of object deanthropologization. The applied task of the article is to describe the mechanisms of understanding and perception of object forms of art, in particular such a form as total installation.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67625364","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 : 2022-08-29DOI: 10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-3-140-156
Mikhail A. Smirnov
The notion of semantic correctness (meaningfulness, or sensefulness) of propositions is widespread in logico-philosophical and linguistic works, as well as in experimental cognitive science. Nevertheless, its content is not clear. Many discussions connected to its use serve as evidence for its obscurity. In this investigation, I articulate and solve some interrelated problems which should be analyzed to make this notion more intelligible. Firstly, I pose a question whether semantic correctness is a normative or a descriptive characteristic. In other words: does it refer to a certain ideal of language usage ascribed to the abstract rational agent but not necessarily observed or even recognized by real agents (the normative option), or to some attitude of real language users towards linguistic expressions (the descriptive option)? I show that the notion of semantic correctness emerged in theoretical contexts as normative due to its role within certain conceptions of scientific rationality. However, one can say that it also contains a descriptive aspect, but it is needed to state distinctively what this aspect is. Particularly, there is a question: can the compatibility of ontological categories in the worldview of a language user (call it ontological correctness) be taken as a criterion of semantic correctness for natural languages? I show that this is inadmissible: ontological categorial mistakes should not be seen as semantic deviations because in this case it would be impossible to delimit senseless sentences from contradictive and simply false sentences in natural languages. Finally, I propose a novel view of the content of the meaningful/senseless dichotomy. It occupies a special place among semantic distinctions being related to structural laws of knowledge incrementation and discourse deployment. From this perspective, I outline an integral approach to the conditions of meaningfulness/senselessness of propositions considering a number of factors. In particular, I analyze the conditions of senselessness for contradictions and tautologies.
{"title":"Foundations, problems and perspectives of the modern conceptions of semantic correctness","authors":"Mikhail A. Smirnov","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-3-140-156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2022-15-3-140-156","url":null,"abstract":"The notion of semantic correctness (meaningfulness, or sensefulness) of propositions is widespread in logico-philosophical and linguistic works, as well as in experimental cognitive science. Nevertheless, its content is not clear. Many discussions connected to its use serve as evidence for its obscurity. In this investigation, I articulate and solve some interrelated problems which should be analyzed to make this notion more intelligible. Firstly, I pose a question whether semantic correctness is a normative or a descriptive characteristic. In other words: does it refer to a certain ideal of language usage ascribed to the abstract rational agent but not necessarily observed or even recognized by real agents (the normative option), or to some attitude of real language users towards linguistic expressions (the descriptive option)? I show that the notion of semantic correctness emerged in theoretical contexts as normative due to its role within certain conceptions of scientific rationality. However, one can say that it also contains a descriptive aspect, but it is needed to state distinctively what this aspect is. Particularly, there is a question: can the compatibility of ontological categories in the worldview of a language user (call it ontological correctness) be taken as a criterion of semantic correctness for natural languages? I show that this is inadmissible: ontological categorial mistakes should not be seen as semantic deviations because in this case it would be impossible to delimit senseless sentences from contradictive and simply false sentences in natural languages. Finally, I propose a novel view of the content of the meaningful/senseless dichotomy. It occupies a special place among semantic distinctions being related to structural laws of knowledge incrementation and discourse deployment. From this perspective, I outline an integral approach to the conditions of meaningfulness/senselessness of propositions considering a number of factors. In particular, I analyze the conditions of senselessness for contradictions and tautologies.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2022-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42750230","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：