Reflecting the Ideas of a New Philosophical Paradigm of Education (Following in the Footsteps of Oleg Bazaluk’s Book)
Rozin Vadim
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2022-14.2.1-115-130
Abstract:

The article presents a detailed response to the new book of the philosopher Oleg Bazaluk “Discursive Thinking through Education”. The problem of understanding Plato’s terms is discussed, in connection with which the author of the article expresses the idea that the correct reconstruction of the statements of ancient philosophers allows not only to choose the necessary values from the existing ones, but also to set new ones; at the same time, he believes, understanding the narratives of a foreign culture (or one’s own, but cultivating a different type of thinking) is quite possible, however, the condition for this is a change in one’s own consciousness, which, figuratively speaking, must be re-educated through the methodology and practice of historical and cultural thinking. The author reconstructs the picture of the world that Plato built and the ontological foundations taken by Bazaluk as the basis of his research and constructions. The author of the article raises the questions why the author of the book took the project of Plato as a basis, who began to doubt it even in antiquity, and also whether knowledge of the cosmos and its evolution can help in building a good society and sociality, as well as make a person happy. Special attention is paid to the issue of Bazaluk’s reconstruction of the evolution of the cosmos and the support of the discursive thinking of education on the knowledge and results obtained in this reconstruction. A number of questions and problems are discussed here: what the author of the book understands by education, what are the features of his reconstruction of the evolution of the cosmos, if it is possible to deepen his understanding of the basic reality (matter) in the direction of taking into account not only the first nature, but also the second. Evaluating the book, the author of the article proceeds from the understanding of Bazaluk’s work as a tradition and discourse that implements at least three principles: Plato himself, Russian cosmism, and the cognitive approach, which is popular nowadays. The author of the article understands his response as a benevolent discussion of the book, calling on other readers to do the same.

Is It Still Possible to Save Russian Economic Science and Education?
Khanin Grigory
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2022-14.2.1-131-148
Abstract:

The article shows the causes and consequences of the deplorable state of the Russian economic science and higher economic education. They are rooted, first of all, in the persecution to which economics was subjected in Soviet times, especially during the Stalinist period. As a result, it lost the most talented scientists. There was no need for good economists in the command economy, so higher economic education had low prestige. In the post-Soviet period, due to the transition to a market economy, the need for economists to work in government institutions and commercial structures increased. However, it turned out that the current system of higher economic education is unable to satisfy it. The author shows negative consequences of a low level of economic education for solving national economic problems and managing companies. The low level of economic science did not allow economists to justify an effective transition to a market economy, taking into account the peculiarities of the Soviet economy and Russian history. In the post-Soviet period, the political leadership focused only on economists loyal to the government, without taking into account their professionalism.

The author proposes the ways of improving the quality of economic science and higher economic education. The emphasis is on a sharp reduction in the number of researchers and teaching staff (and a reduction in the number of students), with a simultaneous significant increase in the remuneration of researchers and teachers basing on objective criteria for evaluating their activities. This will allow democratizing the management of universities and scientific institutions, abolishing bureaucratic control over their activities.

The Relationship between Philosophy of Mathematics and Physics of Q. Meillassoux
Kosilova Elena
DOI: 10.17212/2075-0862-2020-12.2.1-167-183
Abstract:

The article is about Meillassoux’s ideas regarding mathematics. According to Kant, our cognitive abilities are fundamentally limited. We cannot know what is beyond our cognitive abilities. There is no guarantee that the knowledge of a thing in itself does not require the abilities, that a man simply does not have. In addition, according to Kant, mathematics requires intuition. Meillassoux argues that mathematics offers the opportunity to explore the properties of things in themselves. He argues that the laws of logic and physics are contingent, while the laws of mathematics are reliable. The article states that the laws of mathematics cannot be reliable while of the laws of logic are contingent. In addition, the laws of physics are essentially connected with those of mathematics, and we should carefully clear up the question of the extent to which they can be contingent with the same laws of mathematics. Hilbert does not accidentally introduce the idea of ​​a predetermined harmony between mathematics and physics, and Wigner points to this also. We cannot assume that mathematics provides an outlet to things in themselves, and physics is a strictly empirical science that studies only contingency. It is necessary to distinguish in physics the invariant and variable parts for a given mathematics. In addition, it is pointed out that modern mathematics does not always set itself the goal of describing the world, and even more so the thing in itself: a significant part of it is engaged in the construction of models that can describe the phenomenon under study only approximately. The issue of the ontology of Meillassoux’s mathematics is investigated and its proximity to modern Pythagoreanism is indicated. The conclusion states that modern formal mathematics overcomes Kant's limitations, but does not overcome transcendental limitations at all.