Ideas and Ideals

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).

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.

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.

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.

In the publications of 1904-1907 N. Berdyaev traced two lines of knighthood’s idealization: the embodiment of medieval mystical Christianity’s depth and the noble human type. In his book “New Religious Consciousness and Society” (1907) he added the third line, which is formed on the basis of the first two and it portrays the knight as an attractive example of overcoming a self-sufficing, depersonalized, godless state. The main theme of the book is the necessity to update Christianity and all parts of public life. Religious revival, according to Berdyaev, can be connected only with the development of a person. In the modern world the false hierarchy of values is dominating: subjective interests, relative willpower of a person forces out the higher unconditional values connected with the universal objective God’s will. The state serves as an expression of subjective human will, a product of the boundless enslaving power of one person over another. N.A. Berdyaev recognizes free theocracy as an ideal, the only morally justified form of the state. He sees an alternative to the modern false theocracy in the system of values of medieval culture - anarchical principles of feudalism and the personal knightly honor. The Russian philosopher correlates the knightly ideal of the Middle Ages with the modern epoch and convinces a reader of the necessity of its actualization. New forms of organization of public life assume a knightly war for the liberation of a person, including the liberation from violence of the state. Speaking about the mutual relationship between the individual and the state, Berdyaev joins the internal polemic with Slavophiles. He formulated his position on this question earlier, in the articles of 1903-1904. Berdyaev rejects the Slavophile idyll of the former Russia. Greatness and individuality of the nation presupposes freedom of a human being, the national spirit manifests itself not in the solution of the state problems, but in creative realization of universal tasks, common to the whole mankind.

The research is devoted to philosophical reflection on the impact of socio-cultural factors on the modern theory of communication development. The source of the observed diversity of the disunity of modern communication research primarily contains in the multidimensional nature of the phenomenon. Multidirectionality of communication studies is also a consequence of the researchers’ aptitude to the influence of certain socio-cultural factors. The article offers the challenge to outline a number of socio-cultural determinants that caused the dynamics of communication studies of the XX – the beginning of the XXI centuries and to clarify the mechanisms, procedures of their influence on the formation of the theory of communication. As a result of linguistic and chronological approach to modern communication research in the article the author traces the genesis of certain intentions of the communicative theory generated by the state of social and cultural backgrounds of the implemented communication studies. There is a revealed number of significant socio-cultural determinants based on the analysis conducted by the author, such as: a high level of internal autonomy of researchers and research dissonance of cultural and linguistic chronotopes. The impact of social and cultural events from the outside (especially in cases when the events affect the deep layers of society) is located in the same row. Actually, the purpose of the article is a factual verification of generally known terms of the socio-cultural determination of modern communication studies. As a result, we plan to designate a number of socio-cultural factors behind a range of the research intentions in the framework of the theory of communication.

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.

During all their history people have always been striving for acquiring the integrated worldview. In the Christian part of the world theology and science have traditionally been of great importance in the formation of the worldview. First, theology dominated in gnoseological respect, but then, in the last half-thousand years the leading role was given to science. What is the relationship between Christianity and science nowadays? This article is devoted to consideration of positions of some well-known Christian thinkers specializing in this field. Rejecting the division of spheres of competence between Christianity and science, and their autonomous development, they consider an integrative approach as the most perspective, constructive and productive. The author analyses some flaws in attempts to integrate theology and science, which have been done within the frames of natural theology. Unlike natural theology, which stresses natural sciences component, the suggested approach highlights the idea, that in Christianity theories of creation and salvation are inseparable as well as spiritual life development. Modern integration stipulated by specific and similar features of Christianity and science suggests the formation of integrated worldview on the basis of common philosophical schemes and categories. As one of the most accurate philosophical basis for such integrated worldview the author puts forward «philosophy of process» which considers the world as the dynamic, complex but at the same time the interconnected single whole.

The paper investigates contradictory character of the concept ‘freedom’ in the modern society. The author aims to create new principles of structure in this field. The essence of ‘freedom’ is defined by the notion ‘subject-ness’. The heuristic potential of this concept is determined by its capability of synthesizing ideas of self-causality and self-determination, which constitute essential semantic kernel of freedom. The author considers the main tendencies of personalization / depersonalization and subjectivation / objectivation in social-individual human life as the main aspects and contradictions of ‘freedom’. With respect to the understanding of freedom the objectified impersonal principles of social life are accentuated, which are usually referred to as social system. The problem concerning the relationship of an individual and a system is presented as one of the key socio-philosophical and humanitarian themes in discourses forming the basis of all modern philosophy of freedom. The main idea of the paper is to substantiate new structuring of freedom concept. In contemporary culture it includes three main elements: self-determination, self-identity and self-realization.

The article in question deals with the problem of coexistential intercourse in close connection with the opportunity of death. The author defines coexistential intercourse as the universal mode of subjects’ coexistence in their fundamental existential opportunity. The subject of the author’s research is coexistential intercourse in relation with the opportunity of death. Death tends to be a negative opportunity of unique coexistential meaning and its positive opportunity either. The author of the article sets a goal to investigate the existential meaning of death as a fundamental opportunity of coexistence. According to the goal the author  puts the following problem: is it possible to express the irrational contents of coexistential experience by means of rational thinking? Thus, the unique coexistential experience may be expressed by logical means, but we cannot totally avoid contradiction and opposition between coexistential experience and theoretic discourse. Besides, the author of the article uses existential thinking in close connection with hermeneutical approach which makes possible more profound comprehension of the essence of death. Due to the author’s approach death utters itself through a solitary act of negation. The latter bears ultimate overmeaning of non-existence. Moreover, an act of negation represents a specific “challenge” proposed by death. The subject of coexistence is free to accept a challenge of death and to suggest his own response to the opportunity of negation. The subject of coexistential intercourse brings forward and “utters” his conscious and responsible position, opposed to total negation. This makes possible specific “communication” with death which becomes a “subject” of intercourse. Besides, death appears to be a positive opportunity of coexistential intercourse.