Ideas and Ideals

Philosophical anthropology, which arose each time in a specifi c historical reality, sought to create a universal image of man, calling this process the revelation of his essence. This problem was solved by Russian philosophy, which developed the Orthodox Christian tradition within certain historical boundaries. Modern philosophy, solving this problem, cannot ignore the basic philosophical and anthropological ideas of different civilizations, primarily Eastern, Western and Russian philosophy. The space for their comparison and synthesis can be the semantic conceptual fi eld of sociogenesis, which opens up a universal approach to the formation of a human being as a global cultural and biological species. The sociogenetic approach reveals the opportunity to compare two main essential models of man, which are represented by the version of the self-suffi cient individual, which developed in the European Enlightenment, and the version of the conciliar (communal) man, the discussion of which began in Russian philosophy of the 19th century. In the context of sociogenesis, the basis for distinguishing anthropological versions is the opposition of individualistic and communal (conciliar) principles of behavior. A specifi c synthesis of these principles in one or another cultural-historical model appears as a solution to the contradiction between the individual and species model of behavior within the cultural-biological species “human being”. In the natural world, the coordination of individual and species behavior is resolved through the genetic inheritance of species behavior, eliminating the confl ict between species and individual. The sociogenetic evolution of a human being has posed the task of searching for species-specifi c universal principles of behavior, which has complicated the solution of the problem of harmonizing species and individual behavior. The complexity of the situation is that human behavior is directed by cultural programs in the context of a sociogenetic search for a species program capable of ensuring the global consolidation of the human species. In this context, philosophical anthropology requires a sociogenetic support, and the appeal to it can be called the “sociogenetic turn” in philosophical anthropology.

The relevance of the topic is due to the formulation of issues related to the state of modern social reality, the presence of risk in it as one of the essential characteristics. Abandoning the past mechanism of development – tradition as a stable foundation, modern society has acquired the specifi city of the absence of a non-stop movement – a transition that does not correlate with the movement from one stage to another, more stable, but represents the continuity of the process. This is a fundamentally new ontology of reality, in which the constancy of its movement, instability create a situation where, as U. Beck says, in the rapidity of change, there is a “collapse of scientifi c, technical and legal rationality” [3, p. 167], traditionally used as a method of organizing public order.

The article updates the Platonic category of metaxy (“Timaeus”) as a characteristic of the dynamics of being, its constant ‘intermediacy’ between the ‘past’ and the ‘future’ while eliminating the stable ‘present’. Modern social reality is a meta–reality, a transition in its infi nity of realization, the consequence of which is the risk and fear of falling into the abyss of baselessness. Risk is a specifi c characteristic of a social movement in the continuity of transition, when the stability of the present is lost, and the horizon of the future is not visible in traditional logic, which causes existential fear that constantly accompanies a person.

‘Risk Society’ (U. Beck) demanded a new rational ‘arrangement’ (A. Giddens) and a relevant methodology for its construction. The article is devoted to the problem of searching for this methodology. As such, the rationality of the emerging new trend in philosophy – ecosophy - is proposed, which actualizes a holistic view of the world, building on the category of ‘life’ in the unity of its manifestations in nature and culture. The problem is solved by contradiction: on the one hand, the risk is associated with the growth of science, which has historically had a humanistic connotation, on the other hand, its embodiments, being realized today in high technologies, turned out to be turning against man. Contradiction initiates risk. The purpose of the article is to substantiate the rationality of the ecosophical content as a methodology for the study of modern risky social ontology caused by scientifi c technologies, to argue their impact on human health and to show the possibilities of medicine in solving this problem.

The analytical review examines the most signifi cant publications of Russian researchers devoted to Śaṁkara (VII–VIII centuries), issued since 2000. The review is divided into parts devoted to individual authors, and their works are evaluated according to their contribution to Russian Śaṁkara studies, the criterion of which is the author’s translations of Śaṁkara’s texts from Sanskrit into Russian, and their conceptual interpretations.

The “calling card” of V.K. Shokhin’s works is the inclusion of Śaṁkara’s discourse within the discussion of topical issues of philosophical Indology, theoretical philosophy and religious studies. The review examines the monograph “Stratifi cation of Reality in the Ontology of Advaita-Vedānta” and a number of articles; it explicates the methods by which Śaṁkara “fi ts” into the history of world philosophy.

In S.L. Burmistrov’s publications, Śaṁkaraa’s texts are also used not only to solve special historical and philosophical problems, but also to solve topical problems of philosophy. The article “The Concept of Consciousness in the Philosophy of Śaṁkara” makes a completely reasonable conclusion on the decisive role of Śaṁkara in the formation of the Vedāntist concept of consciousness. In the article “Religious Consciousness in Classical Advaita-Vedānta”, Śaṁkara’s interpretations of Ātman are placed in the context of modern discussions on the forms of religious consciousness.

N.V. Isaeva’s publication “The Teachings of Śaṁkara – Brahman as a Look and a Tail ...” contains interesting material that contributes to Śaṁkara’s understanding of Brahman as “full of bliss” (ānandamaya), and an assessment of the importance of the philosopher’s ideas in the development of Vedānta concepts.

In V.G. Lysenko’s article “Sleep and Dreaming as States of Consciousness...”, structured as a “slow reading of the text”, two versions of Śaṁkara’s topology of consciousness are considered. The researcher reveals ambiguity of Vedāntist terminology, leading to different models of consciousness.

Y.V. Predtechenskaya in her article “Defi nitions of Brahman in the Upaniṣads: Apophatic and Cataphatic Approaches ...” quite productively draws Śaṁkara’s comment to the solution of the religious problem of contrasting apophatic and cataphatic approaches to the defi nition of the Absolute.

The book by R.V. Pshu “Vedārthasaṁgraha by Rāmānuja and the Formation of Viśiṣṭā-dvaita-vedānta” brings some new information of the infl uence of Śaṁkara’s ideas on t he Vedānta movement. The author notes that the Vedāntists lived after Śaṁkara did not consider his ideas as fundamental to them, and they did not develop them, but Śaṁkara’s teachings provoked their criticism, and they formulated their conceptions as antitheses to Śaṁkara’s ideas. There in the book, the reader can also fi nd  useful information on the history of world Śaṁkara Studies.

The paper presents the analysis of the historical development of ideas of tolerance, freedom of conscience and speech in Early Modern times. These concepts were introduced to the ideological & philosophical discourse by Reformation and Counterreformation movements. An initial point of their development was linked to the strife of competing parties and thus got a strong instrumentalist bias. Mainstream theorists of the Reformation (e.g. T. Beza, Peter Martyr Vermigli, T. Goodwin) regarded tolerance & freedom of conscience as a means for propagation of a true faith (i.e. Protestantism) and a guarantee against its suppression by the powerful governments of the unfaithful. Mainstream theorists of the Counterreformation (e.g. F. Suarez, M. Becanus) followed this pattern as well. While mainstream theorists stressed a collectivist and clerically-conservative perspective of the freedom of conscience, their adversaries proposed an individualist and politically radical vision. S. Castellion, R. Brown and R. Williams argued that freedom of conscience was a universal right of a person of any confessional identity; a true Reformation, ought to be a “Reformation Without Tarying for Anie”, not just a reformed papal tyranny. Disputations between the proponents of the conservative and the radical perspective culminated in the writings of J. Milton and T. Hobbes. Despite the sharp confl ict of parties they belonged to Milton and Hobbes stood on a common ground of a secular & individualist vision of the freedom of conscience. Their analysis of the practices of freedom of thought & speech and of the tensions between the citizen and the state set an initial point of the religious thought in the Enlightenment epoch.

The Christian worldview of the late Middle Ages was quite diverse, but at the same time extremely contradictory. Northern France, Flanders, and the German towns in the Rhine Valley were fi lled with various spiritual movements and beliefs that largely determined the spiritual climate of medieval Europe. One such spiritual current was the Beguine movement, which was condemned by the Catholic Church, as were many other religious sects during this period of European history. Nevertheless, the reasons for the persecution of the representatives of female semi-monastic communities are still not clear enough for us. On the one hand, we know that the condemnation of the Beguine’s is directly related to their social activities, because they created serious competition to the Catholic Church. But on the other hand, limiting ourselves exclusively to social reasons, we miss the fact that the Beguine movement was largely mystical and many representatives of women’s communities experienced extremely intense extraordinary experiences. Therefore, turning to the problem of the condemnation of the female mystics, we fi nd that the root of these persecutions lay in their reinterpretation of religious ecstasy, rather than their social activities. To substantiate this position, we examine in detail the representation of love-mystical cognition in two of the most infl uential beguines, Hadewijch of Brabant and Mechthild of Magdeburg. We observe that they not only express their extraordinary experience, but they also theorize it. The mystics abandon the notion of love-mystical cognition as a passive process of perceiving God. Instead, they turn to an active kind of love and justify a form of vita activa. This allows them to bridge the gulf between God and man, and to move independently beyond their own female bodies, burdened by medieval patriarchal norms. The female mystics, as we show, change the very relationship between woman and the world, thereby endowing her with greater autonomy in relation to medieval society and divine reality.

The article deals with the history of the birth of the United States, presented in the form of the so-called “American Project (AP).” The creation of the United States has never been conceived in the form of any one document, plan or program of action, which may be called “a project”. The main reason that the experience of creating a new nation-country is conceptualized as a project is the intention of politicians and consultants to transmit this experience to another country. AP refers to state and political institutions and traditions embedded in the history of the country, principles and rights enshrined in fundamental documents, primarily the Constitution. The article details the understanding of AP, focusing on the social nature of this project, its characteristics and the history of its implementation. The design and redesign of states after revolutions, independence or the collapse of empires has become a mass phenomenon in the 20th and 21st centuries. A list of Russian projects is provided that compare Russia with America, look back at the American experience and draw lessons from it. The article analyzes the characteristics of AP, which make up its genome and can be used in the creation of new states: a) value-oriented project (“city on a hill”, natural rights of citizens); b) the formula of a republic (self-government) over a vast territory; c) moral and legal justifi cation for the necessity and legality of leaving the empire, where the rights of citizens are violated; d) sovereignty, divided according to the Constitution between the state and federal levels, the priority of society over the state; e) a system of checks and balances of different branches of government; f) built-in adjustment and development mechanism; g) compliance of the project with the subject of its implementation, his experience and ideals; i) two parallel and interconnected processes: the construction of a sovereign state and the construction of a new nation. The last characteristic is described in detail – the formation of a new nation in the process of creating the United States. Also analyzed attempts to compromise AP by protest movements and replace it with new state projects.The article deals with the history of the birth of the United States, presented in the form of the so-called “American Project (AP).” The creation of the United States has never been conceived in the form of any one document, plan or program of action, which may be called “a project”. The main reason that the experience of creating a new nation-country is conceptualized as a project is the intention of politicians and consultants to transmit this experience to another country. AP refers to state and political institutions and traditions embedded in the history of the country, principles and rights enshrined in fundamental documents, primarily the Constitution. The article details the understanding of AP, focusing on the social nature of this project, its characteristics and the history of its implementation. The design and redesign of states after revolutions, independence or the collapse of empires has become a mass phenomenon in the 20th and 21st centuries. A list of Russian projects is provided that compare Russia with America, look back at the American experience and draw lessons from it. The article analyzes the characteristics of AP, which make up its genome and can be used in the creation of new states: a) value-oriented project (“city on a hill”, natural rights of citizens); b) the formula of a republic (self-government) over a vast territory; c) moral and legal justifi cation for the necessity and legality of leaving the empire, where the rights of citizens are violated; d) sovereignty, divided according to the Constitution between the state and federal levels, the priority of society over the state; e) a system of checks and balances of different branches of government; f) built-in adjustment and development mechanism; g) compliance of the project with the subject of its implementation, his experience and ideals; i) two parallel and interconnected processes: the construction of a sovereign state and the construction of a new nation. The last characteristic is described in detail – the formation of a new nation in the process of creating the United States. Also analyzed attempts to compromise AP by protest movements and replace it with new state projects.

One of the objections to the Pythagorean argument is the reference to the authority of modern physicists, most of whom call themselves atheists or agnostics. Even if there had not been any atheists among the founding fathers of physics, something is wrong with the argument of the intelligent design of the Universe, since so many physicists of the last half-century do not believe in God, the critique goes. To answer this sort of objections, we discuss here the views of Richard Feynman, Steven Weinberg, and Stephen Hawking, each of whom called himself an “atheist”. We attempt  to show in what sense they indeed were atheists and in what sense they were not. Roger Penrose, the eminent physicist and thinker, called himself “rather agnostic”, but he was convinced of the universe’s purpose, and explained what this conviction was based on: not blind faith but the very special character of the physical laws and the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Penrose illustrated his metaphysical views by means of graphic images, one of which we discuss in a dedicated chapter.

Our review of contemporary physicist-philosophers would be very incomplete without the “practicing but unbelieving Christian” Freeman Dyson, with his concept of “the most interesting of all possible worlds”, and so we talk about him too.

We also consider Max Tegmark’s mathematical multiverse hypothesis and show that it does not stand up to criticism in light of the cognitive self-consistency of the universe.

Is it rational to reject the hypothesis of intelligent design when all other hypotheses about the cause of the highly refi ned nature of physical laws fail? The chapter “Absurdity and Skepticism” is devoted to this question.

At the end of this essay and the whole series, we familiarize the reader with the view of the mass man in science and the nature of his “atheism” that was expressed by Jose Ortega y Gasset, supported by Erwin Schrödinger, and commented on by Steven Weinberg.

The article is devoted to rethinking the content of the category ‘synthetic’ in the conditions of modern natural science (fi rst of all, synthetic biology) and its epistemological value. In this paper the category ‘synthetic’ is explored as a product of the epistemological method. The authors carried out an exposition of ‘the synthetic’ category based on the most modern materials of scientifi c and philosophical research. The article attempts to determine the content of the category ‘synthetic’, its place and scope in modern science, by taking into account options for defi ning ‘synthetic’, its advantages and disadvantages.

The works of J. Schummer, in which he develops an ontology of biochemical interactions and the epistemic possibilities arising in this connection, were taken as a basis for the classifi cation and epistemological evaluation of specifi c manifestations of ‘the synthetic’ in the scientifi c fi eld. The concept of F. Bianchini defi nes any ‘synthetic’ as ‘artifi cial’.

The article shows that the category ‘synthetic’ is considered as a theoretical construct that allows for the comprehension of phenomena which epistemological status cannot be unambiguously defi ned as ‘natural’. In the process of convergence of technosciences, there is a tendency towards the emergence of the ‘synthetic’ phenomenon as the main resource through which scientifi c knowledge is obtained. Due to the achievements of synthetic biology in modern science, the problem of the relationship between ‘natural’ and ‘artifi cial’ is reshaped. This happens due to the qualitative and quantitative expansion of the phenomenon of ‘artifi cial’ / ‘synthetic’ and rethinking the differences between them.

Recent advances in the synthesis of organisms and their structural parts, such as the extended genome, allows for ontologists and epistemologists signifi cantly expand the possibilities of categorizing ‘the synthetic’ and build an ontology of ‘the synthetic’.

An important role belongs to the humanistic potential formed by creative abilities, moral and intellectual qualities of a person in the development of modern innovative processes. The article deals with the question of the innovative nature of man and the temporal foundations of his existence in the context of modern temporal issues. Conducting a comparative analysis of the interpretations of the categories of temporal issues helped to identify those meanings that lead to an awareness of the value of human innovation orientation. The most important role belongs to the spiritual potential in creativity, and its development directly depends on a person’s attitude to the temporality of his/her existence. In this regard, modern thinkers pay attention to the study of the antithesis of the trivial and unique in the temporal existence of man and the nature of repetition as a dilemma of the past and the future. Emphasizing the key importance of the moment in a person’s determination to follow a moral path, they answer the question of his/her belonging to the past, present or future. The conditions of innovation, which become obvious when a person orients himself/herself to the spiritual foundations of his/her being, are contained in each of the time modes. The author concluded that the nature of the temporal existence of an innovation-oriented person is distinguished by the uniqueness of its moments as the beginning of the production of new ideas, the unpredictability of the future and the variability of understanding of the past as a condition for free creative choice in the present moment. All these qualities are important in the development of modern innovations, as they ensure innovative continuity and the production of innovative ideas.

The ideas and results that are in the background of the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics had an immense impact on our understanding of reality. Therefore, it is crucial that these implications reach also the general public, not only the scientists in the related fi elds of quantum mechanics. The purpose of this review is to attempt to elucidate these revolutionary changes in our worldview that were eventually acknowledged also by the Nobel’s committee, and to do it with very few references to mathematical details (which could be even ignored without undermining the take-away essence of the text).

We fi rst look into the foundational disputes between Einstein and Bohr about the nature of quantum mechanics, which culminated in the so-called EPR paradox – the main impetus for all the research that would ensue in this context. Next, we try to explain the statement of the famous Bell’s theorem – the theorem that relocated the Einstein-Bohr discussions from the realm of philosophy and metaphysics to hard-core physics verifi able by experiments (we also give a brief derivation of the theorem’s proof). Then we overview the experimental work of 2022 year’s Nobel laureates, which had the fi nal say about who was right in the debate. The outcome of these experiments forced us to profoundly revise our understanding of the universe.