The article discusses the book by A. Yurchak, in which he offers a scientific explanation of the causes and process of the completion of socialist culture and the death of the USSR. The author analyzes the central concept used in this explanation — “authoritative discourse”, showing that the latter is interpreted in two ways: within the framework of the semiotic approach outlined by John Austin, and the “dispositive” approach developed by Michel Foucault. Based on the analysis of the case from (...) the book, the author offers his own reconstruction and concepts (“schemas”, “life world”, “sociality”) that can complement Yurchak’s research. A comparison of the latter’s explanation and the explanation of sociologist Leonid Ionin, carried out during the period of perestroika and reforms, made it possible to clarify Yurchak’s approach and methodology. (shrink)

The article discusses the problems of the understanding of the future. The author suggests to consider this problem in accordance with the analysis of its discourse and types. He distinguishes the following kinds of temporal discourse: event time; contains the past; present; future; future reconstruction created on the basis of reconstructions of past and present; present actions in accordance with the images of future, finally, practices aimed at the implementation of the future as the plan or project. Based on the (...) analysis of several cases and general considerations the author introduces his classification of the types of the future discourse. Firstly, it is “uncertain future" (“future as a thing in itself") as the most relevant type for modernity. Secondly, it is “objectively subjective future" that could be considered both as religious vision of the future and as the rational concept allowing a person to participate in the future constructing. Thirdly, it is “local technological future" that is considered on the example of the analysis of the US and the USSR nuclear project. The current understanding of the future is analysed as an attempt to predict and to build the same future for everybody. The author argues that this attempt doesn't seem to be feasible. Implementing different ideas and projects of the future and acting spontaneously without any particular image of the future, one cannot create the same future for everyone. Probably, it is necessary to accept the fact that there're a number of images of the future and each of them is narrow. Somehow, they all are involved in the formation of the future, although we do not know how exactly. It is better to assume that any of them, even inadequate and destructive are involved in the formation and flow of social processes. That's why it is so important to analyze them in order to understand their action and place in the structure of life. (shrink)

The article discusses the dispute between constructivists and realists, which is claimed to be losing its relevance. The author tries to show that the presuppositions of the dispute relate to the ancient culture, where the ideal objects first appeared and where the question of their relation to the real world was first raised. In the history of philosophy these relations were comprehended differently, and as a result two opposing views were developed - realism and constructivism. The author argues that in (...) order to get away from the ineffectiveness ofthe opposition between these views one needs to turn to the methodological analysis of the real cognitive activity. In the process of discussing how this turn could be possible the author introducesthe notions of ideal object, objectification, diagram, thereality of object ontology, the cycle of the development a new phenomenon along with two kinds of phenomena - the natural phenomena (in the sense ofthe first nature) and the social phenomena.In the final part of the article the author offers a conceptualization of the Internet as a hand-made and mental creation of man, on the one hand, and as a natural phenomenon on the other. It is argued that the Internet exists not only as a newly created «socio-technical body» of man. In the situation ofthe present crisis it also allows us to maintain and reproduce the social and political life. As a result, it is claimed that the reality of the Internet could be considered both constructive and existential.The author concludes that if we understand the processes of construction and of natural existence not merely as two oppositions associated with one phenomenon, but as two complementary aspects of real human activities, the dispute between constructivists and realists becomes meaningless in the cognitive as well as in the practical perspective. (shrink)

The article discusses the concept of the humanitarian-anthropological turn formulated by the famous Russian philosopher Alexander Pavlovich Ogurtsov. He analyzes Dilthey's views, showing that he is not only the initiator of humanitarian discourse, but, in fact, is developing a new direction of philosophy alternative to the natural science approach. The author analyzes the situation that necessitated the development of this direction, as well as the concepts of "life", "history", "understanding", "expression" and "experience", which Dilthey puts at the basis of his (...) philosophical system. He shows that the essential feature of these concepts is a double modality. On the one hand, history (respectively, life, understanding, expression, experience) is “singular”, that is, it changes not according to some law, but due to random circumstances, on the other hand, life changes quite lawfully, under the influence of the mechanisms of culture, language, economics, relationships between people, technology. Dilthey's interest in a holistic analysis of life is explained. The author shows that within the framework of humanitarian and anthropological study, the integrity of life is determined by a number of factors: the problem that the researcher solves, the narratives and texts available to him, the methodology of humanitarian knowledge. In other humanitarian studies, these factors will change, and therefore the integrity of life will also change. It turns out that the integrity of life, over which Dilthey struggled, is not independent of the researcher, his personality and life, it is constituted in the very process of humanitarian knowledge, partly as a singular, partly natural phenomenon. (shrink)

The article discusses specific features of an interdisciplinary research and two strategies for introducing and constructing the objects of this research (an ontological and a constructivist strategy). The first strategy, which comes from Parmenides and Aristotle, is claimed to make a homogenous ontology a foundation ofthe process of the object construction. The second strategy, which comes from Plato, is based on the idea that the construction of an object is done by a thinking individual. Monodisciplinary research (as a part of (...) interdisciplinary research) is characterized by a construction of idealized objects which cannot fully meet the requirement of a certain type of science. This is why it is hard to say what kind of science these objects belong to. The second feature of interdisciplinary research has to do with the interrelatedness of monodisciplinary studies. Monodisciplinary studies create the starting conditions for each other. The author argues that if the distinction between the two strategies is accepted, then a thorough reconsideration of ultimate ontologies (such as "rhizome", "complicatedness", "self-developing systems") is called for. The last part of the article is devoted to an analysis of the epistemic criteria of knowledge it interdisciplinary studies, its truthfulness and effectiveness. (shrink)