Ideas and Ideals

From the middle of the XIX century when the position of the artist was introduced in the Maritime Department, the display of military realities became the rule, first in the fleet, and later in the army. These were landscapes of famous marine painters - I.K. Aivazovsky, A.P. Bogolyubov, L.D. Blinov, genre paintings by V.V. Vereshchagin, I.A. Vladimirova. Full-fledged work of professional artists in the army and the navy broke down after the October Revolution of 1917. With the creation of the Battle Workshop, named after M.B. Grekov in 1934, in memory of the first Soviet artist-battalist M.B. Grekov, the battle genre began to develop in the vein of socialist realism. A colossal surge in the development of the battle genre falls on the years of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945. Under the Main Political Directorate of the Red Army, the Political Administration of the Navy and the Chief Military Sanitary Directorate, propaganda and front-line art brigades started their work. Painting and graphics became not only a work of art, but a visual document of military reality. The subject of this article is the creation and work of front-line art brigades created by the order of E.I. Smirnov, the Chief of the Main Military-Sanitary Directorate (GVSU).The artists of the Moscow branch of the Union of Artists responded to the offer to work in the brigades: N.N. Volkov, D.N. Domogatsky, A.T. Ivanov, N.G. Kozlov, N.F. Korotkova, N.G. Kotov, E.A. Lvov, F.I. Nevezhin, Yu.G. Neroda, D.P. Pavlinov, N.S. Sergeyev, R.I. Sinilnikova, N.G. Yakovlev. For each trip of the brigade, an order was drawn up, a detailed route was prescribed, and a letter was sent to the heads of the sanitary departments of the fronts. The route could change in connection with the frontline situation and, as a rule the previously agreed route was enriched and additionally developed. Front art brigades worked on many fronts of the Great Patriotic War that enabled artists and photographers to cover a wide geographic range of military events. The artists had the task to portray the realities of the medical and sanitary service as truthfully as possible.

On August 6, 2017, Boris Grigoryevich Yudin, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Philosophy, member of the editorial board of our journal, died. Exactly one year he did not live up to his 75th birthday. The contribution of B.G. Yudin in the formation of the Russian philosophy of the post-Soviet period has yet to be truly appreciated. He started studying the newest trends of ethical problems of the development of modern science and technology in our country. Thanks to his works, authority, great personal charisma in Russia, bioethics was created as an educational discipline and practice of ethical examination of scientifi c projects with human participation. B.G. Yudin had high authority in international scientifi c associations, represented Russia in the Committee on Bioethics (DH-BIO) in the Council of Europe. Therefore, he tried to ensure that the level and subject of research of Russian scientists corresponded to the challenges of the latest scientifi c and technological innovations that induce philosophical refl ection to search for permissible limits of the human nature transformation and life and death manipulation. Boris Grigoryevich was always aware of current ideas in the fi eld of ethics of scientifi c research, actively introduced these ideas and a new thesaurus in communication of Russian scientists. He traveled a lot around the country, was the organizer and participant of a large number of various scientifi c events. He not only studied the scientist’s responsibility theoretically, but also implemented it into practice. B.G. Yudin initiated an interest in a new fi eld for us - the principles of bona fi de science, having devoted several articles and reports to this. In recent years, Boris Grigoryevich developed the concept of technology as a modern mode of combining science and technology, the main target of which is human nature. The problem of human improvement has become an ethical-philosophical theme of human transformation within the framework of technoscience. B.G. Yudin’s standpoint in the interdisciplinary assessment of the effects of the technology development is determined by the requirements of a strictly scientifi c analysis of ethical issues arising in the context of new technologies and the consistent protection of humanistic values, so it was far from the extremes and technological optimism and alarmism. Today, on this theoretical basis, it is necessary to develop the practice of humanitarian expertise, to integrate scientifi c achievements into our life through the creation of reliable institutions for the protection of an individual and thereby promote the development of sciences and technologies

The main purpose of the article is to study the features of neuroethics as an emerging scientific discipline claiming to be not only a form of applied ethics, but also an apology for morality within the framework of a naturalistic paradigm based on new data of neurobiology and cognitive sciences. The author considers neuroethics in several aspects. On the one hand, it is presented as a kind of bioethics, applied ethics, ethics of neuroresearch and neuroscience ethics. On the other hand, its manifestations were noted as an element of the technology and the variant of the anthropological transformations maintenance, called “human improvement” in the era of biotechnology. Thus, the disciplinary aspects of neuroethics are studied in the limelight of the critical analysis of the biotechnological improvement of a man, conducted by B. G. Yudin in bioethics. The theoretical methods of inclusion and exclusion were used and the grounds for inclusion and exclusion of neuroethics into bioethics were identified. It is noted that the naturalistic paradigm, in which the disciplinary ontology of neuroethics is formed, limits the philosophical content and dehumanizes it. The author points out that it becomes one-sided because of narrowing the neuroethics subject within the framework of applied and research ethics. Neuroscience ethics is represented as rethinking of the very nature of morality on the basis of new experimental data. In this respect neuroethics is developing a new view on the new neuro-improved society. Giving an example, the author refers to the neuroethics concept of T. Metzinger who proposes using these neurosciences to create a new ontology of consciousness and considers neuroethics as a tool in creating new “ethics of consciousness”. The key concept for such neuroscience ethics is cognitive improvement, so it relies not simply on the neurological explanation of the mechanisms of behavior, but on the ability to expand the possibilities of consciousness with the help of psychoactive substances and other technological possibilities discovered by neurosciences. Naturalistic reductionism in the understanding of morality makes a person vulnerable to his/her right of self-identification, opens the way for control over the personality. The author considers M. Gazzanigi’s alternative approach to neuroethics, who believes that it should be a part of the brain philosophy. Adhering to this position, the author concludes that neuroethics, in order to consistently develop bioethics and remain within the inclusive model, should introduce into bioethical discussions new dimensions of moral choice which arise in connection with new scientific data. Studies of the brain open up even greater complexity in the moral life of man and society, especially in bioethical incidents, and affect self-knowledge and self-identification of the individual.

B.G. Yudin proposed the concept of humanitarian expertise and developed it together with a number of Russian researchers. He focused on the anticipatory nature of humanitarian expertise, due to its focus on both existing and new technologies. The idea of “preliminary habitation” of new technologies by society is essential for the theory of humanitarian expertise and can be theoretically explicated from the point of view of the precautionary principle and as an attempt to answer “the Collingridge dilemma.” Another theoretical perspective is connected with the relevance of the main humanitarian assessments to foreign approaches and programs that determine the social and humanitarian contours of the technoscience. In particular, the ideas of anticipation are considered as strategies for selecting the most stable path to the future and attracting the resources necessary for this. Accordingly, humanitarian expertise is revealed as a new “type of ethics”, which began to take shape in connection with the development of major scientific projects. It is characterized by the following features: interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, management based on anticipation, complexity and social significance of problems, connection with approaches and institutions that have developed in bioethics. The urgency of the humanitarian expertise orientation is clearly visible in those problems that arise in connection with the intensive development of biomedical technologies. In particular, the practice of “deferred motherhood” opens the prospects for an “individual foresight” - the formation of new options to manage individual health risks. The violation of natural cycle's trajectories of life is a way of calculating risks that expand the horizon of responsibility and try to insure against possible disappointment in the future. Precautionary strategies allow balancing between competing ways of mastering the future, and humanitarian expertise is an important component of building an effective decision-making methodology in a situation of uncertainty and finding adjusted coordinates for a sustainable future, which certainly confirms its relevance and prospects for further development.

A notion central to the original Freudian formulation consists of the claim that psychic drives, faced with the need to meet all the exigencies of life, are forced away from their desire for immediate gratification, and into subordination to the reality principle, which limits libidinal development. That is to say, civilization necessarily implies sublimation and repression- i.e. Das Unbehagen. In response, H. Marcuse argues that such a deadlock represents in actuality a historical fact, supported by the discovery that within the very Freudian text itself, psychic phylogenesis is already defined only insofar as it is related to the central role played by social factors. H. Marcuse goes on to argue that such historical Unbehagen today, in late-industrial society, takes the form of surplus, unnecessary repression, as laborers must work under conditions of wage-labor, even though capital “presses to reduce labor time to a minimum.” The current paper seeks to mobilize this Marcusian framework as a valid hermeneutic method for the reading of contemporary late-industrial cultures, exploring specifically in what ways the recent liberalization of sexual norms known as hookup culture could be considered as an example of “repressive desublimation”. It also examines how such systems of libidinal economy in late capitalism functions to further mystify and hide away authentic modes of libidinal cathexis behind the horizon of the possible.

The idea for this article originated from the O. A. Donskikh book “The Will to Dignity. The National Ideal in the History of Russia.” After perestroika the social situation in Russia is persistently raising the question of the principles of social construction, cultural and historical self-identification which determines the attitude of society to the past and to the future. The main question discussed by the author of this article relates to the compatibility of traditional Russian mentality with the construction of capitalism in Russia. Nowadays there is no clear idea of the Russian identity. Currently, the society lacks the apparent theoretically designed view of itself and its past, and this situation creates unhappiness and spiritual breakdown. The internal reflection is needed in order to overcome this state of affairs, and this is impossible without critical reference to the history. In the process of gaining self-identity the history of the formation of civil consciousness and the history of emergence of the intellectual layer of the Russian society, pretending for the role of its carrier, are of crucial importance. The continuity of the history of people is based on its cultural type, on the systemic structure of values, reproduced by culture. For this reason, a researcher has to raise the question of the fundamental values of Russian consciousness and the forms of its manifestation at different stages of social development. In particular, it is necessary to discuss the question of which mental attitude has been dominating in the society during the Soviet period of its history. The issue is the relationship between an individual and society, the relationship between solidaristic and egoistically individualistic attitudes in the culture. Social construction and cultural archetypes mutually determine each other, and the author believes that the mental basis of Russian society is poorly compatible with the capitalist ethics of the organization of society, focused on the success of an individual in the sphere of consumption. The traditional communal archetype is more in line with the non-capitalist form of development, which implies its own mechanisms of synthesis of the public and personal interests. Social science, reflecting the ethics of a solidary society, should play an important role in their implementation.

The article compares the views of the Orthodox patristics with the philosophy of Marxism. (The author considers the content of the Marxist philosophical theory, but not its ideology). This comparison takes place in three key aspects: general philosophical (the basic question of philosophy, theory of evolution), socio-philosophical (the basic question of social philosophy, private and public property, exploitation of labor) and ethical (freedom of moral choice, moral progress). Patristics is less known if compared with Marxism, that’s why the author focuses his attention on the presentation of its ideas in the given article. He shows that in patristics and Marxism there are many common (or at least compatible) philosophical theses. The article preferably considers these "points of intersection". The author comes to the conclusion that Orthodox theology, not being a philosophical ontology, goes beyond philosophical partisanship. It is also shown that the patristic heritage contains provisions incompatible with the class character of society, and above all with private property and exploitation of labor. The conclusion is that the general philosophy of Marxism (dialectical materialism), Marxist social philosophy (historical materialism) and Marxist ethics are compatible with the authentic Orthodox world view (not as a special religious-philosophical "hybrid", but in the format of an intellectual dialogue) in a single cultural space. This conclusion is of great theoretical and practical significance in the theory and practice of real humanism, it allows to establish a constructive ideological dialogue between different parts of Russian society

The concept of liberalism is extremely unpopular in modern Russia. Modern hopes about the solution of Russian problems cling to conservatism based on traditional values which are defined by Orthodoxy to a great extent. In other words, Orthodoxy and liberalism in modern Russian political discourse are treated as contradictory to each other. It is noteworthy that historical liberalism in its conservative variant was rooted in Russian ground and closely connected to Orthodox tradition. But with generally Christian sources of liberalism being widely accepted, the liberal potential of Eastern Christianity is being questioned. It is universally believed that Orthodoxy seemingly “belittles” personality and discourages the development of independence and freedom. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the inaccuracy of such views. Drawing from patristic heritage and the methodology developed by the classical Orthodox theologian V. Lossky and modern Orthodox philosophers (Ch. Yannaras, S. Khoruzhiy) the author elucidates the Orthodox understanding of personality (hypostasis) encoded in the Doctrine of Trinity. It was Orthodoxy that preserved and developed the concept of a human personality absolute value and uniqueness introduced by Christianity, this concept being later undermined by Western Christianity with “amending” the Trinity Doctrine by double procession of the Holy Spirit. Analyzing patristic attitude to a human the author comes to the conclusion that Orthodoxy is the religion of freedom. Its philosophy is pervaded with the pathos of freedom and hymn to the elevated predestination of a human who is able of becoming a co-Creator. The proposition is supported by the Orthodox ideal of deification and the theory of synergism, i.e. concordant action of Divine and human energies suggesting free and conscious efforts of a person. Of course, we are talking about inner freedom: the freedom "to" and not freedom "from", without which the realization of external freedom is problematic

The present work develops the traditions of intellectual history associated with the re-creation of «hyperreality» of the theatrical and cinema space through scenic biographies. Continuing to adhere to the right-conservative positions, the author made an attempt to touch upon a special facet of this space. He seeks to draw attention to the career of female actresses, who because of their sincere and dedicated service to the high art of the cinema and for the ideological and aesthetic sophistication of their images can be considered genuine «queens of the screen» not only of the Fifth Republic, but also of the world cinematography. Of all the numerous pleiad of French cultural figures of the investigated gender category, the author singles out three large-scale, legendary figures – Annie Girardot, Simone Signoret and Michel Morgan.

The study focuses on the most important stages of the cinema career of these actresses and the concrete results of their activities that make up the contribution to the cinema art, which is considered in direct correlation with the main tendencies of France's social and political development in the newest period of time.

Because of this, a historical and cultural comparative analysis of «being-in-the-art» based on the use of various kinds of sources is carried out in the work.

They, except for sources of personal origin, are of paramount importance media materials in the form of film productions, films, the conceptual evaluation of which is based on both the personal impressions of the author and the research reserve that exists in historiography and cinematography

The article examines the process of comprehension of the Old Russian church music heritage by medievalists, church and professional composers and the significance of this heritage for the national culture. The article shows the process of the Old Russian chants tradition revival that took place at the end of the 19th and 20th centuries. Russian composers and church leaders understood the key thing: the secularization of Russian religious music and the use of European musical means of expressiveness would lead to depersonalization, the loss of the “core” which had always been the foundation of the Russian church music. Therefore, the turn to the Old Russian chants based on a special echoes chant was obvious at that period. Composers developed special methods of writing music that corresponded to the spirit and character of the Old Russian chants and embodied them in practice.

A bright figure of this revival was S.V. Smolensky, who had the courage to contradict the prevailing views, to prove and to support the necessity of restoring the Old Russian chants taking into consideration the most essential part of those chants. He was lucky to see the first results of implementing his ideas into practice by his colleagues and pupils.

The revival of the tradition of the Old Russian chants was discontinued by the revolution of 1917 in Russia and the official Soviet policy, which enforced the state atheism.

The interrupted tradition of the Russian church musical culture was revived abroad among the emigrants: in the legendary Don Cossacks choir under the direction of Sergey Zharov (Serge Jaroff). Thus, one can speak not only of the continuity of the Russian church musical culture, but also of transferring it to other cultures. Russian emigrants carefully preserved their national traditions and among them the tradition of Russian church singing. The author describes the characteristic features of these processes and highlights their importance for the Russian culture