Rozin Vadim
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2017-3.2-3-17

The article poses the problem of differentiation of sociology and social sciences. Though sociology refers to the social sciences, but now, it has become unclear what its specificity as a social science is. The traditional understanding of the subject of sociology as a social science has been criticized, and the new proposals are clearly unsatisfactory. In order to consider the stated problem, the author analyzes the works of Zygmunt Bauman and Bruno Latour, discussing this topic, he also considers the stages in the development of sociology, provides a methodological reconstruction of sociological thinking. In particular, the author shows that Bauman in his methodology implements three important principles. First, epistemic status of sociological knowledge, the second provision is, that social forms of life are multiple (populyativny) and sociology in its terms must seize this moment. Finally, the third, the sociologist considers human actions and relationships from the perspective of freedom (svoboda). The author tries to show that sociological knowledge and concepts are based on schemes and models; and then, on their basis ideal objects and concepts of sociology are formed. It is stated in the article, that a social phenomenon is not an object, but a process, a cycle beginning as an act of freedom and ending with the formation of social knowledge and creating the machine (usually a social institution), in which the freedom has been already limited by social norms. Sociological schemes and the based on them sociological concepts and theories are developed by different sociological schools and directions of sociology as a reflection of social experience that is plural, because different forms of social life are behind that experience. Sociological knowledge should not create additional frustration and anomie in the society. Therefore sociological creativity and thinking must pass the "test on the road", which is provided by methodological criticism, analysis of the possible consequences of sociological knowledge application in human life and society, and discussions involving the main interested users (sociologists, population, representatives of various social institutions).

Belyaev V.A.
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2017-3.2-18-31

This article is a critical response to the book by A. Davydov and M. Rosin "Discussion on Mediation". Davydov’s concept is the main idea of the book which is criticized. He suggests "mediation methodology of sociocultural analysis of the Russian society," where he uses the following categories: "split", "transition", "value dominance", "inversion", "traditional", "personal" etc. The main Davydov’s insight is the value of self-determination of a person in the terms of transition to a "humanistic" type of sociocultural system. A person has to leave the "inversion" of traditional thinking through "mediation". Rosin takes the position of a critic and a "realist" and he views Davydov’s position as "idealistic". The author of the article joined the discussion extending the context of it and introducing communicative-methodological space of modernity. It’s important for the author to show communicative-logic space of modernity, which is filled with strategic alternatives with complicated interrelations. This space is closely tied up with communicative-methodological space of modernity in general. The author presents his own project-system methodology of investigating “the logic of modernity”. According to this methodology modernity is understood as the tendency to develop “postcultural-intercultural” socio-cultural architecture. Modernity is a response to the life challenges, the main one among which is the challenge of the negative "cultural" architecture of the world. The deployment of “postcultural-intercultural” architecture of modernity defines a specific structure of its communicative - methodological space. The author shows how this relates to the logic of pro-modern, counter-modern and post-modern theories and practices.

Martynov Vladimir
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2017-3.2-32-40

Among the impasses of radical constructivism, one of the most problematic is the modern understanding of democracy. The newest theory of democracy, developed in the newly published book of A. Magun, is an obvious example. The choice of the method logically brings the author to the left radicalism, whose apology turns out to be a model of genuine democracy that corresponds to its historical meaning. Attempts to write this model into the historical and cultural context provide the possibility of several critical remarks. The main problem of the concept of "actual" democracy is the easiness with which historicism is sacrificed as a fundamental epistemological principle. This is expected, since historicism in constructivism loses its significance. To reach the historical reality, we need the will to reality as such, but in radical constructivism it is impossible. And then the arbitrarily designed optics with the blinded diaphragm, taken from the slogans of today's political establishment, transferred with uncontrolled energy to the view of the subjects of history, since we have rejected the very possibility of control along with the concept of reality, and then the historical reality begins to be judged according to the standards of fashionable templates. This is the prerequisite for the possibility of declaring any significance as "emptiness". This is how the warlike skepticism towards historical versions of democracy appears. The courage to go to the edge provides the dignity of A. Magun's concept, she is interested in the consistency, the readiness to firmly declare totalitarian violence by the meaning of democracy.

Dumnova Elnara
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2017-3.2-73-80

The article presents a sociophilosophical analysis of the problem of identity formation in contemporary society with its systemic transitional character. The idea of complex identity formation in sociospatial form is put forward and substantiated. Identity types, presented as a hierarchical structure in some conceptions, are positioned as components of sociospatial identity.  Due to highly dynamic social changes and processes the structure of sociospatial identity undergoes transformations, resulting in strengthening some components and loss of importance of the other ones. Factors, determining new identity types and transformations of the process of identification of the social actor are discussed. Major tendencies of its self-identification and their results are revealed. The most relevant of them are the following: identity fragmentation and, consequently, the breakdown of its hierarchy, transgressing the limits of national identity and formation of alternative identities (transnational, binational), strengthening of ethnic and cultural identities. Overall, the shift of identity formation from macro-social level and its dispersion to meso- and micro-social levels is established. The significance of the structure center loss is emphasized, indicating the state of chaos, which is analyzed from post-modernist viewpoint as a chance for plural identity formation in the contemporary society and, consequently, antinomic tendencies of the process.  The most relevant aspects of the presented issues, requiring further empirical investigation, are identified in the conclusion.

Palat Madkhavan
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2017-3.1-9-33

Hobsbawm’s modern world originated in the big bang of the eighteenth century, and it was extinguished in an implosion almost exactly two centuries later. To him these two hundred years were defined by the project of the Enlightenment which imagined a world that was equally good for all of humanity and not for just some part of it. More than revolution, the Enlightenment drove this world onward until it seems to have exhausted itself by the end of the twentieth century: the Marxist Hobsbawm is inspired more by the Enlightenment than by one of its consequences, the millenarian dream of revolution. Deriving from the Enlightenment, the conjoined industrial and French revolutions, known as the dual revolution in his work, generated all subsequent events. The industrial revolution assumed both capitalist and socialist forms, and the political revolution inaugurated by the French species spawned a series of bourgeois and socialist revolutions, attempts at revolution of both types, and revolutions against revolution, or counter-revolutions. They permeated not only the politics and the economy of the continent, but as much its social and cultural processes and the sciences and the arts. His magnificent oeuvre celebrates this universe bounded by the two revolutionary waves of the late eighteenth and the late twentieth centuries; but it is a celebration that broods on its dark side as much as on its stupendous achievements. His grand theme is the hope held out by the Enlightenment, the revolutions that sustained it, and the counter-revolutions that negated it. As this modern world drew to its close in the 1990s, a gloomy uncertainty hangs over the world, and his musings on the post-Cold War world reflect this unease.

Valdman I.A.,  Anosova T.V.
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2017-3.1-54-62

 The work provides insight into the formation and development of the “public opinion” concept in the latter half of 18th century. A comparative analysis of the articles ‘opinion’ and ‘public opinion’ in the “Encyclopedia” of Diderot & d'Alembert and in the “Encyclopédie Méthodique” provides an opportunity to trace evolution and the distance between the perceptions of two notions during the various periods of time. The article considers ‘opinion’ as “doubtful and uncertain judgment” and ‘opinions’ as points of view of judges underlying the judgement, which the French Encyclopaedists referred to legal and logical spheres, and their impact on the formation of the “public opinion” concept. The work provides an analysis of ideas of public opinion as a mechanism of public control of social and political realm, which peculiarity is independence from the sphere of state regulation and the lack of institutionalized means of influencing the institutions.

Lyubimova T.B.
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2017-3.1-63-76

  Philosophy in the traditional society was based on other principles than in the modern one. As a part of the traditional culture, it created unity, because it originated from the single principle. It was linked with traditional Sciences, among which there was alchemy. Alchemy became prosperous in the Alexandrian epoch, in Greco-Roman Egypt. It was synthetic metaphysical cognition and at the same time practice of a man and cosmos transformation. Its aim was "healing" the world; it had to deal with qualities, not quantities. With the advent of Christianity, alchemy became persecuted. As a result, it degenerated into the practice of “metals transformation”. Alchemists were rightfully called philosophers. The subject of our study, therefore, is to extend the understanding of philosophy. The applied method consists in the disclosure of the metaphysical status of alchemy as a different type of thinking, not reducible to the categories of modern science. The same analysis has been made in relation to contemporary philosophy. The modern state of humanity is anti-traditional. This is the realm of quantity. There is neither a tradition of initiation, nor the intellectual elite, which put it into practice. Therefore, philosophy ceases to follow its calling, becoming a shell of individual opinions and judgments of non-universal nature. The result of this research is different understanding of philosophy and its role in the unity of culture, it differs from the understanding widely spread today. Nowadays it is understood as generalization of scientific knowledge. But philosophy cannot be subordinated to science as it was once subordinated to religion. Its mission is to find the truth. Modern philosophy bears the imprint of all negative aspects of culture: individualism, “the realm of quantity", the lack of unity, crisis in every direction, anti-traditionalism. Alchemy was the historical experience of transforming knowledge. It sought to overcome the limitations of individual existence.


On August 6, 2017 Boris G. Yudin (Doctor of Philosophy, Professor, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Chief Research Fellow of the Humanitarian Expertise and Bioethics Sector of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, editor-in-chief of the journal "Man", member of the “Ideas and Ideals” editorial board) died after a prolonged critical illness.

Svirskiy Yakov
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2017-3.1-111-125

This article discusses several key concepts of the research strategy of the French philosopher Gilbert Simondon, who put forward the concept of technical, biological, psychological and collective individuation, directly related to the problem of self-developing systems. This review is focused on finding the ways to understand the philosophy of Simondon and justification of its relevance today. The author proposes the interpretation of the origin of individualized sensible beings in the light of such important concepts for Simondon as the transduction and allagmatic, involving also other related presentation. The organization according to Simondon is neither a thing nor an object, nor a ready idea; its purpose is reconciliation of the different facilities in order to obtain sustainable effects. There are no constant organizations, but there are only processes of organization. Organization is the link between people and non-people, ideas and beliefs. It is of "pre-individuated" facilities that compiled assembly and action network. Organization is individuated and becomes metastable. But there are no established regimes of organization. Mechanisms of transduction permanently affect the organization and cause significant changes in it. The thinking about individuation by Simondon relating to organized structures (non-living, living and social) is very important and contemporary. The process of transduktivity suggests epistemology that Heidegger and Derrida, in different terms, called the metaphysics of presence. The author shows that the allagmatic project goes further than the cybernetic project in various philosophical strategies, as well as in the natural sciences and the humanities research, that again points to its interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary character.

Skosyreva A.S.
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2017-3.1-158-168

The article considers the problem of moral ideal formation in the philosophy of personalism. It shows the relationship of religious and social views on moral development. In modern society, due to the simplification of the social communication process, it is necessary to universalize the moral category in order to adopt the norms of behavior and ethical views of society, which, in fact, differ greatly from each other. The article considers the issue of moral self-development in the limelight of aspiration for inner freedom of an individual taking into consideration the growth of communication and travel freedom. The key thesis is the need for the moral ideal formation with setting of goals, values, paradigms, which will serve the aspirations of a modern, harmoniously developed person to the moral growth and the ideal, which embodies the best moral qualities and can become a model. The author compares religious and philosophical points of view on the formation of the moral ideal, which appear to be united in the philosophy of personalism. According to the author the existence of a moral ideal is a prerequisite of moral self-development of a person. The result of the analysis is the conclusion that the unity of goals, values and paradigms of moral self-development, in the context of religious and philosophical direction of personalism contributes to the moral ideal. Reaching the moral ideal requires setting goals in the moral education of the society.