Книга представляет собой исследование, где предпринимается попытка на основе детальной проработки первоисточников и воспроизведения основных ходов мысли и интуиций Гегеля и позднего Шеллинга провести сравнительный анализ их учений об абсолюте.

Contributed papers presented at a seminar organized by Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla and Dept. of Philosophy, Goa University.

Despite tendencies to compete for a prime place in moral theory, neither virtue ethics nor the four principles approach should claim to be superior to, or logically prior to, the other. Together they provide a more adequate account of the moral life than either can offer on its own. The virtues of principlism are clarity, simplicity and (to some extent) universality. These are well illustrated by Ranaan Gillon’s masterly analysis of the cases he has provided. But the vices of this (...) approach are the converse of its virtues: neglect of emotional and personal factors, oversimplification of the issues, and excessive claims to universality. Virtue ethics offers a complementary approach, providing insights into moral character, offering a blend of reason and emotion, and paying attention to the context of decisions. The cases provided can be more adequately understood if we combine the approaches. Both should foster the virtues of humility and magnanimity. (shrink)

The main article is devoted to the historical and philosophical reconstruction of controversy between Vladimir Solovyov and the authors of the “Faith and Reason” - a magazine of the Kharkov Theological Seminary. This controversy took its place in the “theological and journalistic” or the “theocratic” period of Solovyov’s works. Particular attention is paid to the disputes of Solovyov and T. Stoyanov, A.P. Shost'in and the French Orthodox priest Fr. Vladimir Gette on the theory of dogmatic development in the church. In (...) the context of this controversy, the arguments for the “defense” of Solovyov's position, cited in the magazine “Orthodox Review” by a theologian and Konstantin Leontyev's follower Ivan Kristi are also analyzed. The reception of Solovyov's theocratic ideas and reaction to his ecclesiastical views in both the Catholic and Orthodox circles of Russian and Western society is shown. Especially it concerns the criticism of Solovyov’s ideas in the pages of the French magazines “L’Univers”, “L'Union Chrétienne”, “Revue d’Eglise greque-unie”, etc. The evolution of Solovyov's views on the problem of the union of Eastern and Western churches, the renewal of church communication between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, the main result of which was his fundamental but unfinished work “The History and Future of the Theocracy” was demonstrated. A conclusion about the “superficiality” of the judgments of the majority of Vladimir Solovyov's ideological opponents, as well as later interpreters of his legacy, following the French Jesuit Michel d'Erbigny, who tried to present him as a “Russian Newman” who converted from Orthodoxy into the Catholic faith is drawn. It is shown that Solovyov’s projects of the “religion of the Holy Spirit” and the “Universal Church”, created on its basis, should be considered primarily in the context of his own philosophical quest, and not in connection with the confessional and ideological divergences of his time. (shrink)

We present a modernized proof, with a modification by M.A. Shtan’ko, of the Markov theorem on the unsolvability of the homeomorphy problem for manifolds. We then discuss a proof of the S.P. Novikov theorem on the unrecognizability of spheres for n≥5, from which we obtain a corollary about unrecognizability of all manifolds of dimension at least five. An analogous argument then proves the unrecognizability of stabilizations of all four-dimensional manifolds. We also give a brief overview of known results concerning algorithmic (...) recognizability of three-dimensional manifolds. (shrink)

The main result is that is no effective algorithmic answer to the question:how to recognize whether arbitrary modal formula has a first-order equivalent on the class of finite frames. Besides, two known problems are solved: it is proved algorithmic undecidability of finite frame consequence between modal formulas; the difference between global and local variants of first-order definability of modal formulas on the class of transitive frames is shown.

Delo filosofii -- ch. 1. Spory evropeĭskoĭ kulʹtury. Ėpicheskiĭ iskhod. Otkrytie soznanii︠a︡. Drevnegrecheskai︠a︡ tragedii︠a︡ i filosofii︠a︡. Afiny i Ierusalim. Novat︠s︡ii︠a︡ Kopernika i kopernikanskai︠a︡ revoli︠u︡t︠s︡ii︠a︡ -- ch. 2. XX vek: k ontologii spornosti. Sofii︠a︡ i chert. Kant pered lit︠s︡om russkoĭ religioznoĭ metafiziki. O vtorom izmerenii myshlenii︠a︡: L. Shestov i filosofii︠a︡. Na poli︠a︡kh "I︠A︡ i Ty".

The philosophical disposition of the mind of Vladimir Bibikhin is deeply related to the thought of Martin Heidegger, but at the same time his existential character is almost directly opposite. What is common to them is the understanding of thought as the docile attention to the event of being. The text outlines three aspects of this disposition of mind, which all are disputed by the author. (1) Consciousness is not only the Carthesian ruler, but also the subject of the ethical (...) reflexion, conscience. (2) In the “seizedness” as the basic frame of mind of the docile attention the turn of the possessedness is concealed. (3) In the political turn of the seizing historical event the totalitarian power is hidden. (shrink)

The paper proves that a historical method in Marxism is not identified to a dialectical method. The logic of history and the logic of its analysis in Marxism do not always coincide. The Logical coincides with the Historical only in eternity as it actually occurs in the works by G.V.F. Hegel. Eternity which has already witnessed everything does not know history any more. In the same way, history also begins there where the eternity comes to an end. Therefore, artificial identification (...) of the Logical with the Historical in Marxism led sometimes to actual mistakes. It is no wonder that it has always caused discussions in Marxism. They are mainly explained by the fact that the deductive, abstract-to-concrete method in which the “General” appears before the “Concrete” is an anti-historical method in its Nature. In real human history the “General” which is generalization of many “Concrete” could not appear before the latter in any way. For this reason, the real historical materialism needs an inductive method of knowledge. Only in that case historical materialism will cease to remain the soviet “histmat” and becomes the real form of a new world outlook. The author is of the opinion that the Party spirit of the Soviet philosophy promoted preservation of the anomalies mentioned in Marxism. The open discussion could help to find valid but not inherited from Hegel relation of historical and logical methods in Marxism. (shrink)