The interview focuses on the status of historico-philosophical science in the USSR, including comparative analysis of education at Moscow University and in provincial universities. Models of socialization, social elevators, level of professionalism, ideological control, as well as the Soviet heritage in the academic practices of independent Ukraine are discussed.

Digital inequality and digital justice are pressing issues in today's world. This work examines the socio-philosophical aspects of these problems and proposes measures to achieve digital justice. The authors draw attention to the fact that digital inequality can manifest itself in various forms, such as access to information, technology and resources, as well as opportunities to participate in the digital economy. This can lead to increased social inequalities and limited opportunities for the development of individuals and society as a whole. (...) To achieve digital justice, the authors propose a number of measures, such as improving access to digital technologies and resources, ensuring equal opportunities to participate in the digital economy, and protecting consumer rights and data privacy. They also draw attention to the need to promote digital literacy and education so that people can make effective use of digital technologies and resources. The authors also examine digital inequality and digital justice in the context of monopoly and free speech. They point out that some companies that declare their social responsibility may use their monopolistic position in the market to limit freedom of speech and access to information. In this context, the authors suggest strengthening the role of the state in regulating the digital economy and protecting consumer rights. In conclusion, the research is a valuable contribution to the field of research on digital inequality and digital justice. It emphasizes the need to take into account the socio-philosophical dimensions of these issues and suggests measures to achieve digital justice. It also draws attention to the importance of cultural and historical sensitivity in the development of digital policies and resources. (shrink)

The article realizes the analysis of B. Epstein’s social ontology. Social ontology is teaching on basic principles of constructing of social reality, founded on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary strategies of investigations of the social world. There are five leading programs in contemporary social ontology: “CIIF-program” of J. Searle, “Cambridge program” of T. Lawson, “Tufts program” of B. Epstein, “critical realism” and “the other institutionalism”. “Tufts program” is one from them. Social ontology tries to make progress on clarifying all of these in (...) the context of specific topics: group intentions, laws, corporations, property, institutions, social groups. To begin an inquiry in social ontology, we need to choose which entities to work out the ontology of, that is, where to focus our attention in analyzing the social world. B. Epstein supposes his own model of re-conceptualization of framework of social ontology: two concepts play here a leading role, - “grounding” and “anchoring”. “Anchoring” and grounding”: these are two fundamental aspects to the building of the social world. Correspondingly, social ontology consists of two distinct projects. The grounding project is the inquiry into the conditions for the social facts to obtain. There are facts in the world are metaphysically sufficient reasons, - that is, grounds, - but it is more exact social facts of some kind. The anchoring project is the inquiry into what puts those conditions in place. Also it should be realized research concerning the grounding conditions for social facts. The last work of B. Epstein “The Ant Trap: Rebuilding the Foundations of Social Sciences” is devoted to criticism of ontological individualism in philosophical analysis of social knowledge. (shrink)

Introduction and the aim of the study. The paper analyzes the place and role of morphogenetic theory within a framework of contemporary socialtheoretical discourse. M. Archer’s morphogenetic theory and P. Donati’s relational conception are considered as two examples of this discourse. Methods. The authors use analytical methods (analysis, synthesis, etc.), applied in contemporary philosophy of social sciences. Scientific novelty. The key idea of the paper is analyzing morphogenetic social theory in terms of analytical scholasticism as a deviant way of contemporary (...) social theory development. Results. Morphogenetic theory is rather a sociological theory than interdisciplinary social theory; the sophisticated language of “morphogenists” mat seem difficult for other scholars to understand; morphogenetic theory demonstrates indefinite perspectives concerning interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary discourse in the context of contemporary stage of social-humanitarian knowledge development. Conclusions. The status of “morphogenetic theory” among other directions of social theory is by far “peripheral”. (shrink)

The paper is devoted to the subject status of the discipline “Philosophy of Sociology”. Philosophy of sociology is an interdisciplinary direction focusing on the main preconditions of sociological knowledge development as well as cognitive value of sociological facts, theories and conceptions. Its subject can be divided into “philosophical foundations of sociology” and “philosophical problems of sociology”. “Sociologism” as the concept of substitution of social philosophy by sociology as a science which is better empirically oriented and is able to give more (...) exact and proved picture of social reality also poses danger to social philosophy. “Sociologism” presents a positivist attack on social philosophy. Indeed, sociology is no less speculative science than social philosophy is, which is well illustrated by a lot of divergences among its theoretical constructions and empirical data. The main functions of philosophy of sociology in the world of contemporary social-humanitarian knowledge are critical function, integrative function and axiological function. (shrink)

The research sets out an organizing framework for the field of social ontology, the study of the of the nature of the social world. Social ontology is also gaining prominence in traditional philosophical discussions. The subject matter of social ontology is clarified, in particular the difference between it and the study of causal relations and the explanation of social phenomena. For any social fact, there are two distinct ontological questions: what is the ground for that fact, why is that fact (...) grounded just the way. Two different inquires are defined and explained: the study of how social categories are “anchored” or “grounded”. The distinction between these inquires is used to clarify prominent programs in social theory, particularly theories of practice and varieties of ontological individualism. Anchoring and grounding are two fundamental aspect to the building of the social world, Correspondingly, social ontology consists of two distinct project - “project of grounding” and “project of anchoring’. (shrink)