Voprosy Filosofii Research Articles

Феноменология сегодня: исторические проблемы и современные тенденции. Возвращаясь к дискуссии 1988 года (материалы «круглого стола»)

In April 2024, a round table titled “Phenomenology Today: Historical Problems and Contemporary Trends. Returning to the 1988 Discussion” was held, dedicated to discussing current problems in phenomenological research in the context of the historical development of phenomenology in the 21st century. The round table was organized by the journal “Voprosy Filosofii”, the Center for Phenomeno­logical Philosophy of the Faculty of Philosophy of RSUH, as well as participants in the Russian Science Foundation project “World, Language, Reality: European and Russian Philosophy in Conceptual and Terminological Dimensions”. Leading phenomenologists, historians of philosophy, and epistemologists participated in the round table. The focus was on the materials of the discussion “Phenomeno­logy and Its Role in Contemporary Philosophy” (Voprosy filosofii, 1988, No. 12). The following topics were discussed: How can the past 36 years in the global and domestic phenomenological movement be assessed? How has the subject configur­ation of phenomenology as a field of study changed? What are the directions of contemporary phenomenological discussions, the specifics of the phenomenolo­gical method and the limits of phenomenological description. Can it be said that the phenomenological method is applied today in the humanities and natural sci­ences, and if so, how effective is it? What is happening today in phenomenology, and what are the current discussions? Phenomenology and analytic philosophy: prospects and possibilities for comparison. The role of phenomenology in the for­mation of epistemological and ontological traditions in Russian philosophy. What has changed in this field over 36 years? The core of the discussions, sparked by the questions posed, became the problem of the relationship between historical reality and the language of philosophy, as well as the understanding of the value of phenomenological strategies in education and scientific activities

«Европеизм» между политикой и культурой: исторические смыслы и современные трансформации (материалы «круглого стола»)

The journal “Voprosy Filosofii” has repeatedly addressed various aspects of the philosophy of culture. In particular, issues of the interaction between Russia, the West, and the East, the unity of the world and the diversity of cultures, multicultur­alism and the dialogue of cultures, the role of the philosopher in culture, and the prospects for the development of Russian culture have been discussed. Special im­portance has been given to the understanding of cultural studies as a scientific and ed­ucational discipline. In April 2024, we once again turned to the philosophy of culture in the context of the problem of “Europeanism” and discussed the historical meanings and contemporary transformations of this cultural-historical phenomenon. The follow­ing questions were proposed for discussion. What constitutes the “essence” of Euro­pean culture? Does “Europeanism” have an obligatory historical and geographical at­tachment? Why does the methodological concept of “presentism-antiquarianism” gain crucial importance today, particularly for research in the field of the philosophy of cul­ture? Is antiquity the origin only of European culture, or is it the origin of the Great Culture? Is “Europeanization of the Earth” possible today? (Spengler, Husserl, Hei­degger). Who are the true heirs of antiquity today? Are there differences between Greek and Roman cultures? Which type has Europe inherited today, and to what ex­tent? Has the perception of “Europeanism” changed in Russian and world philosophy of the 19th–21st centuries? The role of Hegel in the mythologization of “Europe.” Is “Europeanism” a political myth of the 21st century? How do you evaluate the at­tempts at philosophical comparisons of the crisis of European culture in the 1920s and the 2020s? Does “Europeanism” exhaust European culture? And what philosophical or cultural problem do we want to see behind this? The crucial topic of discussion was the interpretation of Europeanism as a symbolic construct, connected with the assessment of the prospects for the development of the cultural future of Russia, Europe, and Humanity

Философия поэзии: проблемы изучения (обзор материалов «круглого стола»)

On October 24, 2023, as part of the scientific project of the A.M. Gorky Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences “Literature through Philosophical Prism: the History of Russian Lyrics in V. Solovyov’s Aesthetics”, supported by the Russian Science Foundation (RSF, project No. 23-28-00800), with the participation of the Moscow State Budgetary Institution of Culture “‘A.F. Losev House’ – Research Library and Memorial Museum” and with informational support from the journal “Voprosy Filosofii”, an International Round Table “Philosophy of Poetry: Problems of Study” was held. During the round table, the following groups of questions were discussed: 1) How do literature and philosophy interact in Russian lyric poetry from the late 18th to the early 20th century, and what are the connections between philosophical ideas reflected in contemporary philosophical concepts prevalent in the intellectual environment? How was poetry perceived and interpreted by Russian philosophers (Vl. Solovyov, N.A. Berdyaev, S.N. Bulgakov, A.F. Losev, S.L. Frank, and others), and what are the forms of influence of their philosophical-aesthetic systems on poetic creativity, including through literary criticism? 2) What are the theore­tical foundations and chronological boundaries of the existence of “philosophical poetry”? What are the similarities and differences between “philosophical poetry” and “poetry of thought”? What is the relevance and what are the epistemological possibilities of poetic anthropology, ontology, and gnoseology? 3) What are the mechanisms for generating philosophically rich symbols and mythologems in poetry? What are the teleological foundations of artistic rhythm? What function do the spatial-temporal coordinates that form the artistic world of lyric poetry serve?

Экзаменационные вопросы по курсу истории русской философии (1952). Из архива академика И.Т. Фролова

The authors give the examples of how the involvement of new sources makes it possible to overcome stereotypical ideas about the stages and nature of the study of the history of Russian philosophy: in particular, the idea that in the 1930s – 1950s ancient and medieval Russian philosophy, Russian religious philosophy of the XIX–XX centuries and the philosophy of Russian emigration haven't been studied. The importance of recording and publishing any accidentally preserved sources on this topic is noted. The list of questions for the exam in the history of Russian philosophy, found in the personal archive of Academician Ivan Timofeevich Frolov (1929–1999) (compiled for students by the Department of the History of Russian Philosophy of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University in 1952), is published. The authors give a general description of this list of questions and their assessment of how it reflects the state of development of the history of Russian philosophy in the first half of the 1950s. Moreover, the article describes the main events of the scientific biography of Academician I.T. Frolov, related to the subject of the history of Russian philosophy: from his first scientific paper devoted to the problems of studying the history of Russian philosophy that were topical at that time, to his last interview for “Voprosy filosofii” (Problems of Philosophy), where I.T. Frolov shared his plans for the study of Russian philosophy, history and culture.

Philosophy as It Is: The Second Mironov Readings

In early April the Department of Philosophy at Moscow State University for two days held the Second Mironov Readings, held in the memory of our colleague, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Science Vladimir Vasilyevich Mironov, a long-time head of the Department. The speeches at the Conference touched upon a wide range of philosophical topics from exiting the Plato’s cage (by Professor Dagmar Mironova) to developing courseware for certain branches of philosophy. Professors of MGIMO University were represented at the Conference by Professor V. S. Glagolev and M. V. Silantyeva. The plenary report by B. I. Pruzhinin and T. G. Shchedrina from the editorial board of the Journal Voprosy Filosofii was followed by an energetic discussion of cultural problems and intellectual continuity. In the track devoted to the problems of culture, the reports by N. V. Kuznetsov (SPbU), A. M. Sokolov (SPbU), A. A. Krotov (MSU), and A. P. Zabiyako (Amur State University) stood out. M. O. Kedrova (MSU) deconstructed the text theory of Paul de Man, head of the Yale School of Criticism. M. A. Kobrinets (MSU) revealed the features of the interpretation of time in the philosophy of the theater of the second half of the 20th century. A brilliant analysis of the theories of historical memory was presented in the report by D. A. Anikina. These and other speeches presented the main directions of the development of domestic cultural knowledge. The influence of V. V. Mironov on this process, as well as on the whole process of the development of philosophy in our Fatherland, can hardly be overestimated.

Ранний период деятельности Ю.И. Айхенвальда (1896–1901): к проблеме становления литературно-критического метода

The article analyzes the early period of Yuly Aykhenvaldʼs literary-critical activity, from 1896 to 1901. The base line of the research consists of publications in the bibliographic department of the Russkiye Vedomosti newspaper, as well as notes and articles in the Courier newspaper, the journals Herald of Education, Russkaya Mysl, Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii. The article traces the path of the critic from small notes-reviews in the Bibliography section to full-fledged articles of literary criticism. Particular attention is paid to his early experiments in the essay genre, such as the note “Fyodor Tyutchev” and the article “A Few Words in Memory of Goncharov.” These publications are compared with later essays on the same writers. Summing up the results, it can be concluded that during this period the formation of Aykhenvald as a reviewer took place and the stylistic and genre features of his critical individuality began to take shape. The article reveals that he was drawn to that type of essay, which is based on the penetration into the artistic world of the writer without taking into account the biographical and historical context. He acquired the first outlines of his literary-critical method, which he later called “immanent criticism.” Stylization and emotional quoting, combined with the interpretation of quotations, became his main techniques.

Путь к «нормальной науке» через экзистенциализм

The article reflects upon the developmet of professional history of philosophy, philosophy of science and theoretical sociology in Soviet Union in the 1950s and 1960s. The decisive contribution to the formation of modern historical and philo­sophical problems, as well as to modern disputes about the nature of philoso­phy and science, belongs to Piama Gaidenko. The author focuses on the role of studies in existentialism and the way its problematic shaped human and sci­ence studies in soviet philosophy. A small review article published in Voprosy Filosofii in 1959, the very first scientific paper by Gaidenko despite its formal status, appears to be an extremely important scientific document, revealing not only the characteristic personal style of the author soon to become famous, but also the full thematic structure of Gaidenko’s future works. Contrary to the com­mon in the 50-60-s classification of existentialism as “irrationalism” and hence as hostile to science, this movement was the first to be studied as a region of contemporary philosophy thus fostering soviet philosophy to move away from harsh criticism of bourgeois philosophy and develop the branch of history of phi­losophy as “normal science”.

Classical Philosophy in Russian University Journals (late 19th — early 20th Centuries)

The article analyzes for the first time the features of the publication policy in the field of philosophy in university journals published in Russia in the second half of the 19th — early 20th centuries, using the example of publications on Classical philosophy. The author shows that the materials presented in university journals reflected the results of research and educational activities in the field of Classical philosophy, including not only conceptual and critical articles, but also dissertations, act speeches, lectures, historiographic reviews, source descriptions, and commented translations of ancient authors. While the professors of Saint Petersburg, Moscow, and Kharkov Universities preferred to publish their philosophical works in specialized journals — Zhurnal Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniya, Voprosy filosofii i psihologii, and Vera i razum, the professors of Kiev, Kazan, Novorossiysk, and Warsaw Universities published their works on Classical philosophy, first of all, in their university journals, maintaining the authority of a certain university academic school. The article highlights the works by Professors D.F.Belyaev, E.A.Bobrov, A.N.Gilyarov, Yu.A.Kulakovsky, F.G.Mishchenko, V.I.Modestov, Ass. Professor G.I.Yakubanis, who made a significant contribution not only to the study of Classical philosophy, but also to the development of the studying antiquity in general, their research works became the foundation on which the modern study of the history of Classical culture in Russia is developing.

К документальной истории журнала «Вопросы философии»

The article deals with the issues of expanding the source base for studying the history of philosophical journalism in Russia, primarily the history of the lead­ing philosophical journals of the 19th–21st centuries: “Voprosy filosofii i psikhologii”, “Pod znamenem marksizma”, “Voprosy filosofii”. Author pro­vides information about the funds of various state and departmental archives, which contain materials on the documentary history of the journal “Voprosy filosofii”. The main types of sources are determined. Information about already available publications of sources on the history of the journal is given. The ap­pendix contains a transcript of the meeting of the editorial board of the journal “Voprosy filosofii” in 1953 to discuss the publication of articles by physicist, academician V.A. Fock and philosopher, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences A.A. Maksimov (Archive of the Russian Academy of Sci­ences. Fund 1515. Inventory 2. File 128. Sheets 1–13). The controversy of V.A. Fock and A.A. Maksimov is an essential moment in the history of the philo­sophical struggle on the theory of relativity in the USSR. The most acute and significant phase of this struggle fell on the period after the successful imple­mentation of the Soviet atomic project, as a result of which it was decided not to subject Soviet physics to an ideological defeat. The discussion on the philosophi­cal issues of the theory of relativity, which was held on the pages of the journal “Voprosy filosofii” in 1951–1955, also played a role in this question. V.A. Fock defended the theory of relativity from nihilistic assessments and accusations from A.A. Maksimov, who was known as an ideological worker.

Достоинство ученого как путь к истине

The article is devoted to the 90th anniversary of Academy member Vladislav Alexandrovich Lectorsky, his scientific views and personal qualities. On the basis of acquaintance with his works and many years of personal communication, an attempt is made to comprehend the reasons and conditions for the fruitful life in science, which allowed him to become a universally recognized classic of Russian philosophy during his lifetime and a recognized worldwide authority in the field of epistemology and philosophy of science. The mechanism of interaction of scientific inclinations and interests with personal inclinations and ethical principles of a scientist, which determined the choice of life path and direction of scientific research, is considered. There is a tendency to expand the scope of research from special problems of the theory of knowledge to generalizing concepts of philosophical epistemology, philosophy of consciousness, philosophical anthropology, encompassing cognition, man and culture in a holistic worldview system. There is a pronounced social orientation of epistemological research. The way of formation of a scientist’s personality and his civic position in the process of solving research tasks is shown – from the analysis of cognition as an end in itself to the application of the concepts and principles developed in this process to the philosophical understanding of a person, his place and destiny in a modern transforming society, the protection of rationality and humanism as values of civilization. The talent of V.A. Lektorsky as an organizer of science, who worked for a long time as the head of the theory of knowledge department and editor-in-chief of the journal “Voprosy filosofii”, the current professor and dean of the Faculty of Philosophy of GAUGN and editor-in-chief of the journal “Philosophy of Science and Technology” is noted. It is shown how the theoretical concepts of tolerance, critical thinking, and humanism developed by him are at the same time practical principles of his own life. This is the sign of a real philosopher, not just a researcher in the field of philosophy.

“That, really, is altogether sort of…”: On the Meaning of Particles That Have Decidedly no Meaning

The article offers an analysis of the speech manner of the protagonist of Nikolay Gogol’s story The Overcoat described by Gogol through the tendency of Akaky Akakievich to express himself “mostly with prepositions, adverbs, and finally such particles as have decidedly no meaning.” The hypothesis of the article is that there is a certain concept behind the manner of speech of this character, which is not only linguistic but also political in nature. The latter becomes obvious if we trace the evolution of the hero’s speech from the words “That, really, is altogether sort of…” to “Secretaries are altogether sort of… the untrustworthy race…” Grounding of the hypothesis is based on two theoretical sources. The first of them is the study of the specifics of Martin Heidegger’s language, presented by Andrey Paribok in his article On the Philosophical Legitimateness of Heidegger’s Language Licences (Voprosy filosofii. 2018. Vol. 11). The emphasis in this article is on the role played by non-root words (for example, Inheit) in Being and Time. The second concept that we use is the linguistic model proposed by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari in their A Thousand Plateaus. In this concept, it is proposed to understand speech not on the basis of shifters that bind it to the subjectivity, but on the basis of tensors, which serve to express impersonal affects that are not reducible to the speaker’s ego. Thus the relaxed and free speech manner of Gogol himself can be viewed as a utopian ideal in relation to the inability of the hero of The Overcoat to verbal articulation of his thoughts. However, the strong side of Akaky Akakievich’s speech is its power to express the affect that testifies to the hero’s belonging to the multitude of those who have a “strong enemy” represented by “our northern frost.” The climate here is an obvious metaphor for social order. So, “particles devoid of meaning” reveal their potential, and Akaky Akakievich’s speech turns from plaintive babble into a formidable demand to articulate his desire in a generally valid form.

Отрывок из неизданной части «Философии имени» А.Ф. Лосева: [Диалектика инобытия сущности в нисходящем порядке

Earlier, the journal Voprosy Filosofii (2018, No. 10) already published some ex­cerpts from the previously unknown, newly identified draft book by A.F. Losev “Philosophy of the Name” (1927). As follows from archival data, the author in the early 1920s planned to deploy an extensive theoretical part called “On the dialecti­cal nature of the name” (24 paragraphs), which, as a result, was not included in the book. For this publication, the initial part of paragraph is chosen, in the gen­eral plan of the book called “Dialectics of Foreign Affairs from Above”. The pas­sage is of undeniable interest to the philosophy historian, at least by the virtuosity with which A.F. Losev demonstrates the possibilities of building a synthetic “dia­lectic name”, combining several structural-typological approaches: the famous constructions of Plato’s dialogue “Parmenides” (eight “unity”), neoplatonic “qua­trains” or tetractids (One, One existing, Formation, Becoming) and Hegelian triads (Inside-yourself, For-yourself, In-yourself-and-for-yourself)

Ovsei Shkaratan and the Soviet Social Structure after Stalin

Ovsei Shkaratan and the Soviet Social Structure after Stalin James Allen Nealy Jr. (bio) Intellectual history features prominently in the contemporary historiography of imperial and Soviet Russia. Although to date much of this literature has focused on the late 19th and early 20th centuries, scholars interested in intellectual developments in the Soviet Union have recently turned their attention to later decades.1 Perhaps inevitably, this transition has led to a convergence with the rich body of scholarship that interprets Soviet history in a [End Page 77] transnational or global context.2 One important consequence of this conjunction has been the number of works that analyze the relationship between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), intellectuals, and the West. Slava Gerovitch shows that scholars working in the interdisciplinary—and American-born—field of cybernetics developed a technocratic discourse that transcended party orthodoxy while nonetheless supporting the Party's ambitions.3 Petr Cherkasov posits that Soviet scholars tasked with analyzing the capitalist world were afforded sufficient intellectual freedom to dispute party platitudes.4 Benjamin Nathans argues that reform-minded intellectuals combined insights drawn from Western philosophers with cybernetic methods to challenge the Soviet system to live up to its own juridical decrees.5 Aleksandr Bikbov traces how political and sociological categories—at least some of them imported from Western scholarship—played important social functions in the late Soviet and early post-Soviet periods.6 Finally, Sergei Zhuk demonstrates how some Soviet historians of the United States unwittingly served as conduits for American values.7 This article builds on this literature by considering how the Soviet social structure was analyzed in the scholarship of Ovsei Irmovich Shkaratan (1931–2019), a Soviet historian-cum-sociologist whose work first rose to prominence during the de-Stalinization period.8 First, the article situates Shkaratan in his political and institutional context. This discussion explains the preconditions for Shkaratan's work and intellectual evolution. Next, it demonstrates that, during the post-Stalin reemergence of sociological science, Shkaratan drew on Western scholarship to develop "middle-range" theories to posit a functionalist interpretation of the Soviet working class that challenged, but did [End Page 78] not displace, traditional visions of the Soviet social structure.9 A discussion of Shkaratan's first two monographs, published respectively in 1970 and 1973, shows how field research allowed Shkaratan to develop a composite definition of class that incorporated objective, subjective, and spatial variables. A final section considers whether sociologists influenced Soviet socioeconomic management. It argues in the affirmative. The timeframe under consideration in this article (1962–73) roughly corresponds with the first decade of the rule of CPSU leader Leonid Brezhnev (1964–82). It was once commonplace for scholars to understand this period as an era of "stagnation" of socioeconomic and cultural evolution.10 Although this remains the case for those operating within the "totalitarian" or "neototalitarian" schools of Soviet studies, in recent years some—most significantly, Anna Krylova—have challenged this perception and instead stressed the persistence of change in Soviet history.11 Careful interrogation of the scholarship of Soviet intellectuals charged with studying Soviet society during [End Page 79] the 1960s and 1970s buttresses the latter position. This article demonstrates that Soviet social scientists like Ovsei Shkaratan saw the Soviet social structure as neither "stagnant" nor uniform but rather as a dynamic formation rife with inequality. ________ Ovsei Shkaratan's intellectual trajectory was made possible by the political changes that occurred in the Soviet Union after Stalin's death in 1953. Although typically celebrated in the Anglophone world for its denunciation of Stalin-era repression, Nikita Khrushchev's address at the 20th Party Congress in 1956, which encouraged scholarly reorientation toward a focus on the "people as the creator of history" as well as the correction of "erroneous views … in the spheres of history, philosophy, economy, and of other sciences," also marks a crucial moment in the evolution of knowledge production in the Soviet Union.12 In fact, intellectuals had begun to pursue the goals Khrushchev articulated even before the congress. In 1954, Kommunist published an article that chastised the humanities and social sciences for failing to address social issues.13 The following year in the pages of Voprosy filosofii...

«Университет как сердце культуры» Беседа Т.Г. Щедриной с А.Д. Королем

Conversation of the executive secretary of the journal Voprosy filosofii T.G. Shchedrina with the rector of the Belarusian State University, A.D. Korol on the eve of the 100th anniversary of the University. The discussion concerned the problems of modern education, of the place of the University in national and world culture, of its current transformations, as well as the role of communica­tion in philosophy, teaching and upbringing.

Памяти С.С. Хоружего

I first got to know Sergei Sergeyevich Khorouji through his publications. This happened in the early 1990s, some time after the defense of my dissertation. I have written about different types of historical experiences in Russia and the West. The editor-in-chief of La Revue philosophique de France et de l’étranger, Yvon Bres, who was present at the defense, invited me to write for this edition a review of selected materials on Russian philosophy published in the journal Voprosy Filosofii. New issues at that time regularly came to their editorial office. I agreed, and from that moment, my correspondence acquaintance with Sergei Sergeevich began. His article “The Philosophical Process in Russia as a Meeting of Philosophy and Orthodoxy” [Хоружий 1991] aroused extraordinary interest. Sergei Sergeevich, who studied the features of the historical life being of Russia, presented a model that he considered fundamental for the development of re­search on the intellectual history of Russia. This coincided surprisingly with my own scientific concerns at that time. In a way, I felt like we were meant to meet and collaborate. And that is precisely what happened.

Конкретный идеализм Сергея Трубецкого и идея конкретности в русской философии. Материалы «круглого стола»

In March 2022, the journal Voprosy filosofii and Educational fund of brothers Sergey and Evgeny Troubetski’s held a “round table” dedicated to the 160th an­niversary of the birth of the Russian philosopher Prince Sergei Nikolaevich Troubetskoy (1862–1905). The participants identified the most relevant, signifi­cant aspects of the teachings of Sergey Nikolayevich and, at the same time, pre­sented a holistic vision of his work. Participants focused on the following questions: 1. The idea of concreteness as a characteristic feature of Russian idealistic metaphysics: Vl.S. Solovyov, S.N. Troubetskoy, G.G. Shpet, S.A. Askoldov, Fr. Pavel Florensky, I.A. Ilyin. 2. The principle of the conciliar consciousness of Sergey Troubetskoy as the epistemology of concreteness. New about the premises of Troubetskoy’s concrete idealism in his philosophical correspondence with his brother. 3. Conciliar consciousness and perspectives of the national philosophy of memory. 4. The idea of the autonomy of the academic community as the most important principle of Sergey Troubetskoy's social activities. 5. The specifics of the national liberalism of the Troubetskoy brothers and its difference from the conservative liberalism of Boris Chicherin. 6. Philosophy of Sergey Troubetskoy in the context of the evolution of the Russian philosophy of unitotality. 7. Eurasianism as an ancestral choice: why did the son of Sergey Troubetskoy reconsider the ideological heritage of his father? During the discussion, productive discussions arose, opening up prospects for further research on topical problems in the history of Russian philosophy. Ac­cordingly, the “round table” materials are published below.

Felix Trofimovich Mikhailov’s Search into The Riddle of the Self

On April 16th and 17th, 2021, Moscow State University of Psychology and Education (MSUPE), Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Education (RAE), the Philosophical Society Dialectic and Culture together with the ANO Institute of Problem Educational Policies Eureka and informational support of the journals Cultural-Historical Psychology and Voprosy Filosofii held an international scientific conference The Riddle of the Self. The scientific conference took place in MSUPE in connection with the 90th anniversary of Felix Trofimivich Mikhailov (1930-2006), Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Academician of the RAE and the author of the book under the same title. The Riddle of the Self was originally published in 1964 and advocated for a general study of human nature based on the study of cognition, consciousness, and language. This lapidary book was reprinted in 1976 and determined a whole new paradigm of multidisciplinary knowledge of person and personality across various research fields. The focus of the Self of F. T. Mikhailov came into being through his idea of appeal (obrashchenie). This concept is vivid in his works and multi-author books Public Consciousness and Individual Self-consciousness (1990), Self-Consciousness: Mine and Ours (1997), Human as Object and Subject of Medicine (1999), Selected Works (2001), Self-determination of Culture. Philosophical Search (2003), and in multiple scientific articles in the journals Voprosy Filosofii, Philosophical Sciences etc. F. T. Mikhailov viewed appeal as a mechanism of creation, development and transformation of culture, as well as the mechanism of its appropriation in ontogenesis and phylogenesis. According to F. T. Mikhailov, culture is nothing less than an antecedent, process and result of people’s creation of their appeals to each other and themselves, appeals that are essential to their very life. Culture as intersubjectivity of human collectivity is deeply rooted in the fabric of education and determines the appeals of the participants of the educational process. F. T. Mikhailov considered education a meeting point of generations, where different age groups face each other and appeal to each other in a way that generates, reconstitutes and conserves culture. The key to the above-mentioned riddle can be found in the domain of human freedom of thought, feeling and action. And every person can advance the emergence of a free and creative Self, both personal and universal. The conference comprised multiple lines of research into philosophy, culture, communication, psychology and education and made it clear that we are still students of F. T. Mikhailov.

Some Features of Russian Reception of Martin Heidegger in Relation to Debates Over His Black Notebooks

ABSTRACT This article focuses on the Russian image of Heidegger as a thinker of Being, as a conservative critic of late modernity, and as a “post” philosopher. On the one hand, special interest in Heidegger’s theory of deconstruction developed in Russia under French postmodernism’s influence on late Soviet and post-Soviet philosophy. On the other hand, reception of Heidegger’s critique of European nihilism, total domination, and scientific technology contributed significantly to interest in issues related to the political implications of philosophy. The author sees the unique features of Heidegger’s Russian reception in its rejection of the rigid distinction between Heidegger’s “core” philosophy and the “incidental” circumstances associated with his political activities in the 1930s. The current debates over his Black Notebooks demonstrate not only the existence of an independent language of description and analysis in Russia’s philosophical milieu, but also an original tendency toward a holistic consideration of Heidegger’s thought. In addition to reviews of his Black Notebooks by Nelly V. Motroshilova, Vladimir V. Mironov, and Dagmar Mironowa in the pages of Voprosy filosofii, the author discusses the earlier works of Nelly V. Motroshilova, Vladimir V. Bibikhin, Arseny V. Gulyga, Valery A. Podoroga, and Aleksandr G. Dugin.

Жить и умереть Вступительное слово академика И.Т. Фролова на открытии конференции, посвященной проблемам жизни и смерти (Москва, 1993 г.) Предисловие к публикации

The transcript of the opening speech of Academician I.T. Frolov at the opening of the Conference dedicated to the problems of life and death is published. The conference was organized in 1993 by the Institute of Man of the Russian Acad­emy of Sciences. In his opening speech at the conference, I.T. Frolov summed up the results of ten years of work on the problem of the meaning of life, death and immortality of man, which began with the publication of his articles on this topic in the first issues of the journal “Voprosy Filosofii” in 1983. In his 1993 speech, I.T. Frolov spoke about the program of tanatological research of the Institute of Man of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He shared his thoughts on the prob­lem of life and death in Russian philosophy and culture, and analyzed the prospects for research of this problem by modern science. The text of the tran­script was discovered in 2020 by the Group for the Study of the Creative Heritage of I.T. Frolov of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Кризис современной культуры: взгляд из истории русской философии (Федотов – Вейдле – Ландау – Бицилли) Материалы «круглого стола»

On August 26, 2021, with the support of “Voprosy filosofii” was held a “round table”, the participants of which considered it meaningful and relevant to address the legacy of experiencing and philosophical reflection of critical epochs by peo­ple who have fully endured the “breakdown” of being and an anthropological crisis – for comprehending the disturbing changes taking place in modern soci­ety. In this regard, the intellectual biographies of thinkers who felt a colossal shock in the 1920s and who tried to comprehend their local experience as a global are exceptional. In the authors’ focus are ideas and arguments of the philosophers of the Russian Abroad about the crisis of their contemporary culture (Fedotov – Weidle – Landau – Bicilli). The “round table” is an attempt to correlate their experience with the modern reality of the anthropological crisis. The studying intellectuals underlined the death of culture as the main threat to the life of the social organism. The salvation of culture, first of all, depends on the spiritual efforts of people. From this point of view, philosophy has to com­prehend the principles that make it possible to resist the processes of cultural de­struction. And in this regard, the personality of the philosopher is of exceptional importance, his willingness to live and work “as if history would never end, and at the same time, as if it ended today” (G.P. Fedotov). The philosophy of culture forms the ideal of personal choice as a free submission to universal human goals. The relevance of the intellectual and spiritual search of the “Russian Abroad” thinkers can't be overestimated since this crisis continues today, entering ever new, previously unpredictable phases. The struggle for culture continues. There­fore, the intellectual searches of the "Russian Abroad" thinkers are essential to­day. The core of the discussions was three actual topics in the context of their comprehension by the philosophers: 1. The crisis of religious consciousness; 2. The crisis of scientific rationality; 3. Crisis of cultural identity.