Ideas and Ideals

The article presents a historical and philosophical retrospective aimed at establishing strict conceptual boundaries that prevent uncontrolled extrapolation of modern terms and concepts to realities that are not included in the meanings of modern humanitarian discourse. The philosophical definition of the “culture” concept is substantiated, which includes specific characteristics that have a chronologically factual origin. The authors give a general conceptual overview of current intellectual trends dealing with the theming of the phenomenon of culture; and highlight their pluralistic character. The article analyzes the polysemicity of the postmodern situation as an intersubjective disposition within cultural communication and as a special way of understanding the current state of affairs that exist under the sign of fundamental complexity. Criticism of destructive attitudes in understanding and predicting possible outcomes and solutions of pressing culturological problems is carried out. In particular, it points to the moment of subjective psychologizing in some pessimistic expert assessments, when personal disorder in new circumstances is presented as an objectively negative state of affairs. The principles of constructivism ontology are introduced and defended, which constitute an alternative to the traditional understanding of philosophy as delayed evidence (the owl of Minerva flying out into the twilight). A fundamental replacement of the descriptive (passive-contemplative) approach is proposed with a projective (active-creative) one. The authors present a substantial version of constructing a positive ontology based on a historical precedent in the form of the ideology of classical humanism. The philosophy of postmodernism is interpreted as hyperreflection of Modernity, that is, not as a negation, but as overcoming the traditional structures of rationality to form more complex (sophisticated) types of reflective thinking. The authors substantiate the need to connect a volitional resource, intentionalized in the direction of creating semantic configurations of social reality. This eliminates the reductionist possibility of interpreting such a call by appealing to complex contexts that require the development of complimentary discourses and narratives.

The authors adhere to the position according to which any extreme is false, and the truth is found in the zone of balance between the extremes, considering the completeness of the experience knowledge of both extremes. Classical history passed under the sign of speculation, the 20th century - under the sign of thoughtless activism. In the 21st century, it is necessary to learn how to combine these extremes.

The article deals with investigating into the conditions of the critical attitude spread among scientists and academicians during the period of 1960s–1990s towards some aspects of domestic and foreign state policy of that time. At the same time, the motives for such a criticism seem not to be obvious, since the social status and well-being of the scientific and academic intelligentsia, as well as its public prestige, was one of the highest among the socio-professional groups of Soviet society. To perceive criticism of Soviet scientists as a form of struggle against the regime does not seem entirely correct, since the critically thinking Soviet scientists did not seek to popularize their socio-political ideas and attract supporters from other social groups. On the contrary, the discussion on “complex” political and socio-economic aspects of the Soviet society took place within closed communities. In addition, the Soviet scientific intelligentsia of that time, unlike the pre-revolutionary intellectuals, did not idealize people; they did not have a sense of “guilt” towards it, as well as the idea of selfless “serving the people”. Soviet scientists perceived themselves as an elite, even aristocratic group, and this idea found expression in the science-fiction novel “Hard to Be a God” by the Soviet writers Arkady and Boris Strugatsky. The main character of the novel is the historian Anton, who was sent to the Arkanar Kingdom on an alien planet and assumed the role of an aristocrat named Don Rumata. He masterfully uses a sword, enjoys phenomenal success with women and contributes to the progress of local humanity. The Soviet intellectuals of that time constructed their own elite professional and social identity using the practices of prestigious consumption and behavior and pursuing specific socialization strategies that were alternative to the official Soviet norms and rules of behavior. The self-identification of scientists as an elite group within the Soviet society was based on the social conditions for the development of science in the USSR in the 1950s–1960s such as a high level of prestige of scientific and academic activities, high expectations from science as well as creating relatively autonomous scientific centers (“Academic Town” or ZATO (‘closed administrative-territorial formation’) – closed towns with secret research installations). Such settlements were quite independent from the local and regional authorities being subordinated directly to Moscow. Besides, secrecy of closed cities or facilities limited the possibilities of the direct control and interference from regional party and state authorities in the activities of scientific institutions and scientists.

The article deals with a scientific substantiation of the possibility to solve an essential methodological goal — social diagnosis of human capital on some concrete social practice, taken as an indicator. A humorous genre ‘stand-up comedy’ is suggested to be chosen as the indicator. Arguments: 1) It is one of the most energetically developing areas with a youth audience in Russian mass culture. 2) The economic side of the project, its capitalization in the literal sense of the word, is also actively developing. 3) High level of the individual success, which allowed for the consideration of a stand-up comedian as a local ‘growth point’. 4) The last argument allows involving the arsenal of the passion theory, reconsidering the problem from a social energetic point of view. 5) It, therefore, allows considering irregular distribution of stand-up communities localization as an effect of passion theory erosion in a particular region (The Republic of Khakasia). Stand-up was analyzed from different points of view: philosophical, historical, aesthetic, economical, political and micro-sociological.

As a result of the analysis a number of provisions were put forward which allow designing empirical research programmes. For instance, by using an idea that laughter is alienated aggression, one may clarify the perspective of social tension studies. Historical analysis showed that stand-up metamorphosed from a Protestant sermon and may be the indicator of westernization of both society and its regional localizations. Political studies of the problem allowed formulating relativity of the social and aesthetic resonance of comedy. Micro-sociological analysis helped to define the mechanism and distribution tendency of passion theory tension in an audience.

As a result of the study certain thematic clusters and an algorithm of their logical interdependence were defined, aimed at empirical research, which will make it possible, in short term, to implement methodologically valid study of human capital by using a stand-up comedy as an indicator.

The article presents a socio-philosophical analysis of such a phenomenon as a falsehood. The analysis of falsehood is based on the study of inverse relations in a hierarchical system. Since the lie itself can be considered as a hierarchical system, and in addition, it is implemented in a hierarchical social system, this approach is reasonable. Inversion is a form of system relations in which some lower element takes on a dominant value. This situation is observed, in particular, when a falsehood occurs. The ability of the system to form inversions depends on the organizational principles that determine the hierarchical subordination of elements in the system. System inversions occur when one organizational principle contradicts another. Inversion, which has developed in a hierarchical system, is an increase in internal contradictions that can destroy this system from the inside. The very fact of falsehood is generated primarily by the peculiarities of human thinking. A verbal thought is significantly different from a verbal utterance in the process of communication. What matters, however, is the strength and direction of these differences. The falsehood itself can be considered as a hierarchical system in which at least four organizational principles can be identified. The first such principle distributes statements according to the degree of their inconsistency with the real state of affairs. The second principle places statements in a hierarchy according to their degree of plausibility. The third principle is based on the degree of anti-sociality of the falsehood. Finally, according to the fourth principle, the hierarchical relationship between statements depends on whether the statement affects the reflection of facts or opinions. As a result of the interaction of these statements, inverse relations are formed in the system of falsehood.

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.

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 article deals with one of the particular applications of the concept of “simulacrum”. The article also shows under which circumstances there was a need to use the concept of “simulacrum”. In this case, the simulacrum is presented as a form of simplified and distorted perception of system objects. The main form of a system organization is a hierarchy. Hierarchical systems have the property of forming inverse relationships. Inversion occurs when a subordinate element of the hierarchy acquires dominant properties in it, but does not move to a higher position. This relationship is possible because there are several organizational principles in the system, and these principles collide with each other. A distorted perception of hierarchical systems occurs when inverse relationships are ignored. As a result, an image of the system is formed that is distant from reality (simulacrum). Over time, this image becomes less realistic, as changes occur in the real system caused by the development of inversions. Inversions are the cause of intra-system dynamics; they can lead a system object to decay and destruction. They also, under certain circumstances, contribute to the self-development of the system. However, if we consider only the simulacrum of this system, this ability to self-destruct remains unnoticed. The system’s ability to develop itself remains unrecognized. This concept has become relevant as a result of inversion in the hierarchical system of human activity. The subordinate level of activity that is responsible for subject actions comes to the fore because of the increasingly technical aspects of human activity. The highest, symbolic level of activity moves to a subordinate position. The activity level responsible for subject actions also operates with signs and is responsible for using language as a sign system. Hence, there comes the need for the concept of “simulacrum”, which is “the signifier without the signified”.

The article presents a philosophical and psychological analysis of the psychodynamics of deceit, as a specific phenomenon determined by personal qualities. The results of the study are presented on the basis of a questionnaire developed by the authors to self-evaluate the admissibility of a lie. Students of both sexes participated (156 people between the age of 17-25). Three groups of subjects were identified, 30 people in each: group 1, with a negative attitude to lies; group 2: people who admit to lying in some cases, and group 3: people who admit to lying in all its manifestations. Personality factors in these groups were compared using the Kattel 16 PF questionnaire. People with different permissibility of lying and falsehood have different psychotypes. People who categorically deny and do not tolerate lies and deceit have high self-control of their behavior, severity and rigidity, while they are internally timid, aloof, tense, overly careful, avoid stress, and have a narrow life perspective. A person who admits falsehood in some cases and situations is conformal, dependent, not always confident in himself, often preoccupied with problems, emotionally unstable, often tense. There is a struggle between conscientiousness and falsehood; provoked by emotional instability and the lack of a “moral core” that does not allow the expression of one’s own opinion. Respondents representing the openly deceitful type reveal emotional balance, flexible intelligence, sociability, good memory and variable creative thinking. In the selected groups, there are different ways of resisting stress. It is shown that the adaptability of people from group 3 is higher than that of people from 1 and 2. The permissibility of lying is positively correlated with resilience to stress, and the inadmissibility of lying is associated with low stress tolerance. It follows from this that falsehood is embedded in the structure of the personality as an adaptive strategy. The authors state that falsehood is an adaptive phenomenon that facilitates survival in society.

This paper is devoted to the analysis and to the comparison of concepts on theodicy and on the nature of evil that was developed by two medieval Jewish philosophers. They are Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides or Ralbag, 1288-1344) and Hasdai Crescas (1340-1410/12). The sources of the analysis are the third chapter of the fourth book of the “Wars of the Lord” (1329) by Gersonides and the second chapter of the second book of the “Light of the Lord” (1410) by Crescas. Both philosophers assert that evil essentially cannot come from God. The causes of evil are the sinfulness of human beings, or the celestial bodies, or the breaking of the connection between human and God. The problem of evil and injustice in this world are closely related for Gersonides and Crescas to other problems, such as divine knowledge of future events, free will, reasons for reward and punishment. Gersonides and Crescas differ considerably on these issues. Gersonides demonstrates that God is not an essential source of evil. He proceeded to build on this statement with the fallacy of the opinion that divine providence extends to individuals. After all, said Gersonides, retribution would make God a source of evil. And in this case, righteous men would always be rewarded, and sinners would always be punished for their sins. But obviously this is not the case. Crescas, in contrast to Gersonides, claims that God knows individuals. This does not prevent him from agreeing with Ralbagh that God is not the source of evil. According to Сresсas, any punishment or suffering (even for the righteous) always leads to good. It is obvious therefore that Crescas adheres to a more traditional position, trying, inter alia, to bring his thoughts as close as possible to the ideas expressed in the Torah. Gersonides adheres to a position close to the ideas of Maimonides. Gersonides, in the author’s opinion, created a philosophical concept that is more consistent in comparison with Crescas’ conception, however more distant from the Jewish teaching.

The purpose of this paper is to show how the thought and speech of people holding and defending directly opposite positions affect the change in the thought and speech of people of their own and subsequent generations, with different life orientations, and to find ways of this influence. The author describes the situation that arose at the end of the sixties of the twentieth century, known as the ideological dispersal of philosophical, historical and sociological trends that ran counter to the policy of the CPSU, which became especially fierce in the fight against opponents after the USSR’s invasion of Czechoslovakia in August, 1968. One of the results of such an ideological battle was the defeat of the sector of the methodology of history of the Institute of General History of the USSR Academy of Sciences, headed by M. Ya. Gefter, who published a series of books in which the so-called laws of historical development (formational approach) were questioned and the fundamental provisions of the classics of Marxism-Leninism were criticized.  The subject of analysis is Gefter’s article “A Page from the History of Marxism in the Early 20th Century”, published in the book “Historical Science and Some Problems of the Modernity”, dedicated to the analysis of Lenin’s tactics and strategy development which changed the views of many, especially young, historians on the historical process, and most importantly - on the methods of seeking and expressing the truth. The differences were expressed primarily in the fact that the proponents and defenders of the Soviet regime, which was based on their own established norms of Marxism-Leninism, fearlessly used all means of pressure on unwanted opponents. Professionals, however, who tried to understand the true sense of the historical process, the sense of judgments about it, especially the sense of the revolutionary struggle against the autocracy, unfolding at the beginning of the twentieth century, were forced to use the Aesopian language, which also provoked a distortion of this sense in many ways: due to the nebulous and veiled expressions, which give the impression of theoretical blackmail, causing such consequences as speech irresponsibility.