Immanuel Kant and Herman Cohen’s philosophy of religion

The article analyzes the main characteristic features of the philosophy of religion of the founder of the Marburg school of neo-Kantianism Hermann Cohen. Special attention is paid to Cohen’s criticism and reinterpretation of Kant’s “practical philosophy” from the point of view of the philosophy of religion: Cohen supplements and expands Kant’s provisions on moral law and moral duty, interpreting them as divine commandments. The authors emphasize the fundamental importance for Cohen of the “internal similarity” between Kant’s ethical teaching and the main provisions of Judaism. The sources of Kant’s own ideas about the Jewish tradition are shown, which include the work of Moses Mendelssohn “Jerusalem” and the “Theologicalpolitical treatise” by Baruch Spinoza. Cohen’s criticism of these works is analyzed an much attention is paid to the consideration of Cohen’s attitude to Spinoza’s philosophical legacy in general. The interpretation of the postulates of Judaism by Cohen (and their “inner kinship” with Kant’s moral philosophy) in ethical, logical, and political contexts is presented. Cohen’s understanding of such religious-philosophical and doctrinal phenomena as law, grace, Revelation, teaching, the Torah, messianism, freedom, the Old Testament and the New Testament, etc. is provided and analyzed. The main points of Cohen’s religious teaching as “ethical monotheism” are considered; in particular, the authors analyze his understanding of the idea of God as “the only one”, which is highlighted in the works of Paul Natorp. It is concluded that Cohen’s philosophy of religion, which is based on the postulates of Judaism as well as Kant’s “practical philosophy”, could be characterized by the terms “ethical monotheism”, “universalism” and “humanism”.

Evolutionary theories and the philosophy of science

Philosophical theories proceeding from the history of physical-mathematical sciences are hardly applicable to the analysis of biosciences and evolutionary theory, in particular. This article briefly reconstructs the history of evolutionary theory beginning with its roots in the 19th century and up to the ultracontemporary concepts. Our objective is to outline the dynamics of Darwinism and anti-Darwinism from the perspective of the philosophy of science. We begin with the arguments of E. Mayr against the applicability of T. Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions to the history of biology. Mayr emphasized that Darwin’s publication of the Origin of Species in 1859 caused a genuine scientific revolution in biology, but it was not a Kuhnian revolution. Darwin coined several theories comprising a complex theoretical system. Mayr defined five most crucial of these theories: evolution as such, common descent of all organisms including man, gradualism, the multiplication of species explaining organic diversity, and, finally, the theory of natural selection. Distinguishing these theories is of great significance because their destiny in the history of biology substantially differed. The acceptance of one theory by the majority of the scientific community does not necessarily mean the acceptance of others. Another argument by Mayr proved that Darwin caused two scientific revolutions in biology, which Mayr referred to as the First and Second Darwinian Revolutions. The Second Darwinian Revolution happened already in the 20th century and Mayr himself was its active participant. Both revolutions followed Darwin’s concept of natural selection. The period between these two revolutions can be in no way described as “normal science” in Kuhnian terms. Our reconstruction of the history of evolutionary theory support Mayr’s anti-Kuhnian arguments. Furthermore, we claim that the “evolution of evolutionary theory” can be interpreted in terms of the modified research programmes theory by Imre Lakatos, though not in their “purity”, but rather modified and combined with certain aspects of Marxian-Hegelian dialectics.

Global values of the global world

The article is devoted to the problem of global values, whose existence is problematized in the face of increased regionalization as a vector of world development. Regionalization is not “the end of globalization”, but its stage, which is “the revolution of plurality” (M. Naim) — distribution regularities of the network society on the whole world. The global world is not a homo geneous world of mankind based on the same values, rather the global world is a combination of diverse social communities striving for autonomy and self-determination. Building on the concepts of M. McLuhan, A. Toffler, D. Bell and N. Luhman, the article analyzes the information society in which the main element is communication as a source of social innovations. Digital technologies contribute to the development of human abilities and personal qualities without which social progress is impossible. If the vision of humanity in the development of the network society, where relations between the countries, regions, social communities and people are built on the basis of the values of life, liberty, creativity, justice, law, etc., then these values should be recognized as global. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the reaction of various social communities on regionalization, which finds its expression in the deepening of social inequality, increasing conflict of generations and other phenomena that contribute to disseminating conservative ideas and moods. Based on the works of J. Derrida, N. Luhman and D. Kean, it is shown that global values are not the achievements of exclusively European culture but are to varying degrees implemented and developed in all cultures. Against the background of the crisis of multiculturalism, the integration of cultures should be based on intercultural communication, for which the process of coordinating positions is important. The purpose of intercultural communication is not only the exchange of cultural values, but the demonstration of the benefits of life in those communities that are guided by global values.

Ethical concepts in Russian religious-didactic literature of the 17th century

The article offers an analysis of ethical concepts in Russian religious-didactic literature of the 17th century. The main sources are alphabets published in Moscow. There were two alphabets printed by Vasily Burtsov, and an alphabet by Karion Istomin, as well as “Azbuka s oratsiey” (Alphabet with Didactics), and the manuscript “Alfavititsy didaskala” (Small Alphabet of a Teacher). These alphabets can be considered as religious-didactic literature because in addition to grammar, these manuals included the narration “On the Letters” by Chernorizets Hrabar (Hrabar, the Black Robe Wearer), extensive religious-anthropological reasoning, prayers, the Credo, Decalogue (in the Alphabet by Karion Istomin only), the Beatitudes, and other texts which were presented in Catholic catechisms of that time, as well as in the “Profession of Faith” by Peter Mogila (he used the Catholic catechism in his “Profession”). The influence of Reformation ideas is obvious, too. Several works by Karion Istomin, the alphabet primarily, were written and illustrated under the influence of “Orbis sensualium pictus” by John Amos Comenius, the last bishop of the Unity of Brethen (Bohemian or Moravian Church). The content of these manuals (including visual content) allows us to conclude that their mass publication was induced by the disciplinary revolution that began after the end of the Smuta (the Time of Troubles) in Russia, which is associated with the House of the Romanovs coming to power. The creation of a new tsardom was impossible without new people whose education was based on religious ideas and regulations. Ethical concepts in these books were almost inseparable from religious regulations, which is explained by the doctrinal aims of primary education in Russia of the 17th century.

The invention of reality

The subject of the article is the process of forming ideas about the world as reality, which is most accurately described by the word “invention”. The author, relying on classical texts in this respect (E. Husserl, M. Heidegger) and modern studies (A. Makushinsky, J.-F. Kurtin) substantiates the position according to which the idea of reality is not a cultural invariant. The notion that reality has always existed, and thanks to scientific reason has been most adequately reflected, understood and described, is a significant modernization. This has been evidenced by both the etymology of the concepts of “reality” and “reality”, which first appeared only in scholasticism (D. Scotus, M. Eckhart), and the process of their content filling, which is inextricably linked with the formation of scientific rationality. The article shows that both the scientific mind and the integral image of the world created by it, which we call reality, genetically date back to the Christian value-semantic universe. Initially, it was within the framework of the discourse of natural theology that the image of the autonomous world has been conceptualized, developing according to the universal principles established by God. In the first scientific programs (R. Descartes, G. Galilei, I. Newton), these ideas were continued, as a result of which the world began to be understood as an immanent reality that is subject to the laws of nature. The new ontological beliefs received the ultimate philosophical foundation in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, to whom the phenomenal world exhausts the reality available to man. Accordingly, the world turns into a one-dimensional detranscendentalized reality. This methodological approach allows the author to make the following conclusions: 1) the image of world “reality” is a rather modern “invention”, which was unknown in previous eras; 2) at the same time, it is genetically connected with the Christian semantic universe, outside of which it could not appear; 3) the world in it is understood as a one-dimensional immanent reality.

The first Russian textbook on logic: Historical, logical, and textual analysis

The article is devoted to one of the first Russian textbooks on logic written by Makariy Petrovich (1733–1765), a professor of the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. The analysis of this work demonstrates that it was not a simple translation of some Latin textbook (such translations were published later, after the foundation of the Moscow University). The textbook is a result of Makariy’s (and his predecessors) years of teaching logic in Russian religious schools. It is, to some extent, an original work. The article explores the peculiarities of Makariy’s rendition of logic. For example, the chapters on syllogistics illustrate that Makariy was somewhat innovative: he replaced Latin names for the modes of the categorical syllogism with made-up Cyrillic words (while keeping to the rules defining the choice of Latin letters). It seems that he strived to make logic more practical and as a result, wrote the textbook entirely in Cyrillic. The article considers the historical context of Makariy’s work and its place in the history of logic. The authors make several assumptions as to why Mikhil Lomonosov did not publish the first Russian textbook on logic and also why Makariy’s book was not printed. The authors’ comparative study of XVIII century textbooks on logic makes it possible to specify some probable sources for “Logic”, both Latin and Greek. In addition, Makariy’s approach to the translation of logical terms (some of them he translated into Russian while others were transliterated) is considered. After thorough examination of all three surviving manuscripts of Makariy’s “Logic”, the authors conclude that this textbook is worthy of proper publication.

Classical Eurasians on the civilizational identity of Russia

Philosophical and world outlook understanding of the problem of civilizational identity of Russia acquires special relevance in connection with the preservation of the Eurasian civilizational breakdown that arose at the end of the 20th century. To prepare a new civilization project, it is important to use the theoretical legacy of prominent Russian thinkers, including the classics of Eurasianism. The purpose of the article is an objective analysis of classical Eurasianism, the comprehension of its most important provisions, taking into account the modern realities of Russian society. Using historical and philosophical methodology, critical analysis, methodology of civilizational theories, the author of the article substantiates the conclusion about the scientific significance of the Eurasian concept of civilizational identity of Russia. Its components are examined in a systematic form, such as the perception of Russia-Eurasia as a whole civilizational continent of an equal Europe, the idea of a “symphonic personality” in Eurasian culture, the idea of pan-European nationalism, the idea of establishing social justice, the provision on strengthening the religious element to strengthen the spiritual principle, etc. The article provides a critical analysis of some judgments of historical Eurasians, including their idea of absolutizing the role of the state, the theory of “potential Orthodoxy”, etc. An important conclusion of the article is the provision that Eurasianism is not a teaching hostile to the West, but a different non-Western scientific perception of the historical fate and civilizational development of Russia. Concrete examples substantiate the claim that it is necessary to distinguish fair criticism of classical Eurasianism from its simplified and largely biased assessments. The author of the article concludes that understanding the heritage of the classics of Eurasianism is necessary to develop a social project for the cultural and civilizational revival of the Russian Federation and the entire area of Northeast Eurasia.

The article is dedicated to the anniversary of Boris Vasilyevich Markov, the famous philosopher of Saint Petersburg, Russia. The author of the article, basing on many years of personal experience and professional communication with the hero of the day, presents an expressive and holistic image of Markov as a person and as a philosopher according to his biography and creativity. An attempt is made to consider the complex philosophical evolution of Markov, which took place in key periods for Russian philosophy when Russian thought actively absorbed the key philosophical texts of the 20th century that had become available. Markov is distinguished by a unique ability to creatively rethink a variety of philosophical trends — classical philosophical schools, phenomenology, existentialism, hermeneutics, analytical philosophy, structuralism — actualizing their significance for modern philosophy and synthesizing their experience in their original understanding. The specificity of Markov’s oral and written language is distinguished by its expressiveness, brightness and aphorism. It is no coincidence that the philosophy of language had a great influence on his philosophical development, remaining as one of the main research topics throughout all his works. Touching upon some of the key books of Professor Markov, written by him at different times, the author strives to briefly mention and analyze the main features of his philosophical style, thinking, and worldview. Special attention is paid to philosophical anthropology, which is directly related to the philosophical activity of the hero of the day over the past few decades. In this regard, emphasis is given to Markov’s book “Mind and Heart”, which marked the beginning of the most productive period of his philosophical work, which is currently associated with the problems of visual anthropology of communication.

The article examines the epistemological parameters of the phenomenon of expert examination as well as the social and cognitive features of using scientific knowledge to substantiate the objectivity of expert evaluations. Today, the scope of expert activities has significantly expanded. Accordingly, the number of studies, including philosophical ones, considering this phenomenon, in particular, has increased primarily in connection with the growth of its role in assessing the social-humanitarian risks associated with the introduction of scientific-technical advances. At the same time, attention is directed to the fact that it is precisely due to the significant expansion of the scope of expert activity that the nature of the expert examination itself is distorted — its dependence on social contexts is increasing, but its objectivity is lost. The article aims to clarify the reasons for the growth of this dependence in connection with the specificity of the epistemological parameters of knowledge, which is used as a scientific basis for expert evaluations. This aspect of expert examination, as a rule, falls out of sight of both its researchers and the experts themselves. Modern philosophers and methodologists of science state the direct dependence of expert examination on applied (i. e., limited to practical requests) developments, while, in the author’s opinion, the condition for the objectivity of expert opinions is the obligatory appeal of experts to fundamental science, motivated by the commitment to expand the sphere of holistic knowledge concerning the world. This condition is highlighted due to the epistemological perspective of comprehending expert evaluations, which makes it possible to include additional criteria for their objectivity in the sphere of the expert’s self-awareness. The actualization of such criteria, according to the author, is now becoming a prerequisite for an effective expert examination that maintains a high social status.

The first-person perspective description error in naturalism

In this article, it is shown that in some theories defending the non-reductive nature of the firstperson perspective it is possible to find a very inconsistent attitude. Such theories are associated by the author to a so-called moderate naturalism. The article demonstrates the difference between moderate and radical naturalism. Radical naturalism completely abandons the idea of subjectivity as unobservable from a third-person perspective. On the contrary, moderate naturalism defends the irreducibility of subjectivity, but believes subjectivity to be a part of the nature. As a case of moderate naturalism, the article considers the approaches of Lynne Baker and Thomas Metzinger. Exemplifying these approaches to the first-person perspective, it is shown that in the case of certain work strategies focused on the first-person perspective, it is possible that a so-called description error may appear, by which a description error of subjectivity — when it is placed in the world as a part of nature, existing according to its laws — is understood. The logic of this error points to one of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s statements about the incorrect placement of the eye in the perspective of the eye view itself. If the first-person perspective is introduced as a point of view (or a point of observation), then its subsequent shift to the observation result area leads to description error. If there is no observation, as well as no viewpoint, we lose the very idea of first-person perspective and actually take the position of radical naturalism.

Hermeneutic reason as the “Art of understanding”

Originally, hermeneutics was the interpretation of important texts. In the 19th century, hermeneutics transformed into a science about the meaning and interpretation of all expressions. In the 20th century, Martin Heidegger radicalized hermeneutics, indicating that understanding (the essence of hermeneutics) is not a technical or intellectual operation, but a way of being. The central point of reference in the article is the hermeneutic philosophy of Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur. The central idea of Gadamer’s philosophy is understanding, which is connected with the so-called “rehabilitation of practical philosophy”. In such philosophy, the question concerning wisdom and thinking about the best possible way of life occupies an important place. Gadamer in his philosophy indicated the conditions of understanding. One of the main elements of his concept is hermeneutic experience, a negative experience, meaning awareness of the finite nature of all understanding. Complementation of Gadamer’s concept could be the hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur. He believed that there is not a correct method of interpretation and the best way to understand is the “conflict of hermeneutics”. Ricoeure discerned two forms of hermeneutics: “hermeneutics of trust” and “hermeneutics of suspicion”. The idea of hermeneutics is developed as an art of understanding, indicating the conditions and possibilities of interpreting texts, symbols and metaphors. An interesting addition to the philosophy of Gadamer and Ricoeur is Hans Blumenberg’s concept of metaphorology. He identified three basic positions of metaphors and the functions they perform: traditional, understanding a metaphor as inaccurate; pre-conceptual speech; and the unavoidable and irreplaceable nature of a metaphor. Under this concept lies the science of images through which man grasps himself and the world. Blumenberg explored the functions of various metaphors depicting truth (light, nudity), human life (sea travel, hiking, climbing) or the world (clock, machine, organism). Absolute metaphors, in addition to presenting the picture of the whole of reality, also play the role of orienting patterns, directing action. They contain certain value systems that determine attitudes, expectations, longings, interests, and indicate important or indifferent things or spheres, incline to certain actions or omissions.