To find more information on Rowman & Littlefield titles, please visit us at www.rowmanlittlefield.com.

This special issue of Journal of Indian Philosophy results from a thematic session on “Logic in the Religions of South Asia”, a separate section of the 2nd World Congress on Logic and Religion (held at the University of Warsaw, Poland, June 18–22 June, 2017). The papers address questions, discussed in philosophical thought in classical India, such as how religious practice could shape philosophical reflection on the relation between language and reality, whether there are necessary truths and whether a priori (...) knowledge is possible, the nature of some arguments for the existence of God, especially the argument from the causality of the universe, the problem of the validity of religious authority, the relation between logic and religious belief as well as language-related topics such as a theory of interrogatives expressing doubts and of declaratives expressing certitudes, both regarded as the verbal expression of cognitions. (shrink)

To find more information on Rowman & Littlefield titles, please visit us at www.rowmanlittlefield.com.

The contemporary secularism is found to be a philosophy of life “as if there were no God” or a kind of ideology, which demands an absolute autonomy of human being to shape his destination. In the philosophy of Descartes at least three sources of secularism could be found: his theory of cognition which resulted in developing other than the classical concept of truth and rationality; his metaphysics; his arguments for the existence of God and in his concept of the (...) nature of God. Karl Marx’s criticism of religion was a next powerful factor on the advance of secularism. Marx makes the charge against the religion that it acts to reinforce the break down the conscience of man living in the modern society, into a public and a private realm. The widest criticism of religion was made by Marx in: Acontribution to the Hegel’s criticism on the philosophy of law”. Especially its first seven paragraph, are particularly important in view of the advance of secularism. F. Nietzsche undermines metaphysics by showing that knowledge of a non-empirical world is cognitively superfluous. He makes clear that he has moved beyond the assumption that there might be a metaphysical world to a positing of the empirical world as the only one. Nietzsche considers that the notion of God is inimical to human nature and human life. Is this really so in reality? Is Nietzsche’s consideration about God and religion in any way applicable to our own age? (shrink)

Created in 2002 the Regional public Fund of Chelyabinsk «For Person and of Humanity's life» (Chelyabinsk), had established research institute "Soznaniya". For the moment the institute has elaborated the Unified theory of Consciousness (UTC), the Unified law of Being (ULB) and developed General theory of relativity (GTR). UTC, ULB and GTR are the consistent integration of knowledge of science, philosophy, and religion; and they are exposing the energoinformational essence of Universe and Person's organization. These new theories are (...) postulating the priority of informational interaction by the programs-projects and only after that the objectivity of observed. Meanwhile, the Person is functioning (working) according to the programs-projects, which fill his Consciousness with contents and his life with purposes and senses. The programs-projects are being developing on basis of program of sensuality manifested in actions. The source of program-project for the Evolution is the center of energoinformational area of Universe, called God-Absolute. This knowledge creates the perspective for thedevelopment of science and philosophy. From all these theories the philosophical idea "For the life with Rational Consciousness", pretending on the universal status, is coming out. This idea is a new solution for the way out from the state of bifurcation (choice of the further way of development) by the way of Spiritual and moral rebirth of Humanity, and the weakening of consequences after the present ecological catastrophe. (shrink)

The article focuses on the key aspects (which are the principles of holism and evolution) of the integral approach of the modern American philosopher, Ken Wilber. The theory of Ken Wilber is analyzed in the framework of the new paradigm of science, which is being developed during the last decade of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century. The advantages of the works of Ken Wilber are the following: firstly, the scientist was able to systematize and integrate (...) dozens of other theoretical approaches, most of which are relatively new and not well-known. Secondly, Ken Wilber’s theory is important for the reason that it can serve as a methodological and “practical” method, which can be applied to the study of any phenomenon, taking into consideration as many aspects of reality as possible, as well as those theoretical approaches, which are otherwise unrelated to each other. It makes possible to avoid reductionism and fragmentation of knowledge in the study of (religion). The article shows the importance of Wilber’s theory for the area of religious studies. I have built existing theories that study religion into a methodological “map”, which provides a basis for such kind of approach to religion that can integrate positivistic, phenomenological, functionalist, psychological and other theories in the area of religious studies. Such theories, taken separately, study only one aspect of religion, representing a fragmentary knowledge of this phenomenon, and this aspect is compensated by an integral approach. In addition, it can be hypothesizedthat antagonisms between religious bodies and religious persons can be interpreted and explained as a conflict between different structures of consciousness, (studied by K. Wilber in his works as well). (shrink)

As we can see, the side effects caused by the continuous development of science and economy have gradually brought human society into a risk society. While currently, the power of globalization is unceasingly forming a world risk society. German renowned philosopher and sociologist Ulrich Beck has opened a unique and novel researching angle to review science difficulty and abuse of modern world risk society, and has made comprehensive and profound analysis. World risk society has three main characters: First, the emergence (...) of the world risk society is linked to the two fundamental changes still influencing our lives, which is the so-called “end of nature” and “end of tradition”. Second, in world risk society, mankind lose their dependence on “expert system”. The religion is replaced by the concept uncertainty and uncontrollable. In addition, there are other series of problems and abuses between world risk society and traditional society. The prime mover of social changes in world risk society exists in the side effects instead of the instrumental ration in traditional times, etc. The problem in world risk society’s science ethics are as follows: First, expansion of ration. It is mankind’s extreme confidence in ration that causing unlimited development of technology and exploitation of resources. Thus almost everywhere in nature becomes man‐made nature. Second, rupture of knowledge. From “knowledge is virtue and virtue isknowledge” (Socrates) to “knowledge is power” (Bacon), now “knowledge is money” (Bacon). Third, displacement of science value. In traditional society, science research is scientists’ personal interests. Now science research turns its target to meeting social needs, and scientists gain more profits from the technologicalproducts directly. Beck has raised the theory of risk society, and attempted to use “reflexive modernity” as the strategic plan to respond the global consequence of modern science crisis, and expressed revelatory viewpoint on diagnosis of the essential of “reflexive modernity”. Similarly, Lash emphasizes risk culture toremind human to pay attention to the ecological threat and risk. In addition, Bauman and Habermas also have some statements, etc. So my conclusion is, we should consider the autonomy of science development and its inherent relationship with economic interests. In addition, what we concern is the science dual identity of both defendant and expert. Also, the public’s understanding of the uncertainty provides a space for democratization. (shrink)