Tri filosofskikh "opravdanii︠a︡" (teodit︠s︡ei︠a︡, antropodit︠s︡ei︠a︡, kosmodit︠s︡ei︠a︡ Serebri︠a︡nogo veka) -- Russkai︠a︡ sofiologii︠a︡ i kabbala -- S. Bulgakov : nauka sofiologii︠a︡ (ili konet︠s︡ religii) -- Tretiĭ Zavet o. Sergii︠a︡ Bulgakova -- Tretʹezavetnai︠a︡ misterii︠a︡ ("malai︠a︡" trilogii︠a︡ Bulgakova).

Introduction. The technocratization that a person faces in the current reality, along with increased life comfort, has also brought with it a clear threat to changing the status of a person in the world irrevocably. In the discourse of modern posthumanistic philosophy, attempts are being made not to annul the privileges of a person, but to extend them to the whole world, that is, to make suffering, the ability to question, subjectivity and other characteristics of a person belong to everyone. (...) The Russian philosophical tradition of questioning about man throughout its existence denied and continues to deny the deanthropologization of the world and seeks to conduct a discourse about man as one who is ontologically not equal to the world and cannot be forced out of the privileged position he occupies. -/- The purpose of the article is to touch upon the most interesting, in the author’s opinion, works existing in the world research field concerning the philosophical understanding of the “Legend of the Grand Inquisitor”, as well as to develop her own idea, which is based on an attempt to philosophically and anthropologically refract the “Legend” and to show that it bears the features of precisely Russian philosophical thought and radically denies the deanthropological tendencies of Western thought, arising from its internal logic and naturally leading it to nullify the privileged position of man in the world, and to demonstrate the possibilities that the Russian philosophical tradition provides for overcoming the anthropological catastrophe, which is so widely discussed today. -/- Methods. The main method of the research is a comparative philosophical and literary analysis of the works of F. M. Dostoevsky, V. V. Rozanov, N. A. Berdyaev, S. L. Frank, A. Camus, Z. Freud, I. Neifeld, G. Hesse, as well as a point reference to the works of K. N. Leontiev, S. N. Bulgakov, N. O. Lossky and V. S. Solovyov. These types of analysis are aimed at identifying connotations and discrepancies in the philosophical systems of the studied thinkers, both at the level of textual analysis of their works, and at the level of studying their concepts. Textual analysis is used as an additional method. The author of the article gives a conscious preference to the comparative method, as such, which serves to achieve the purpose of the article. -/- Scientific novelty of the research. The paper focuses on comparing attempts to conceptualize a person in the discourse of Russian and European thought. As exemplified by a number of representatives of the Russian and Western intellectual traditions, as well as a comparative analysis of their concepts. The article attempts to reflect the deep difference between the two anthropologies. In addition, the author makes an attempt to find in the philosophy of F. M. Dostoevsky those deep anthropological problems that are of a universal nature, and have found their understanding, both in the Russian and in the European philosophical tradition. -/- Results. The author explores the anthropological configurations of the philosophies of the chosen thinkers. The article analyzes both Russian and European attempts to ask about a person, focusing their attention on interpreting the “Legend of the Grand Inquisitor”, which is part of the last novel by the Russian writer and thinker F. M. Dostoevsky. -/- Conclusions. Russian philosophical thought, which is rooted in the Gospel tradition of comprehending man, is characterized by attempts to see person as finite, which contains the infinite. Russian philosophy in its ideas continues to defend man, his existential uniqueness and subjectivity, guaranteed by God. At the same time, European philosophy is on the path of development, in the process of which a person risks losing the privileges of existence, a posthuman, a superhuman is conceptualized, and a tendency is outlined to blur the border between a human and non-human entities. (shrink)

The relationship between the Sophiology of Sergius Bulgakov and the neo-patristic movement within Orthodoxy is well-known. The neo-patristic synthesis won the day, and it is the dominant theological tradition within Orthodoxy. It is time for a serious reappraisal of Bulgakov’s theology by the Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christian theologians because Christian theology is faced with a looming bioethical issue, cybernetic enhancement technology. This technology raises a cybernetic-ethical version of the Sorites paradox that leads us to inquire at “what point (...) do technological enhancements take away or replace our humanity?” and “are cyborg enhancements ethical from an Orthodox Christian perspective?” Bulgakov’s Sophiology may provide important tools for assessing cyborg enhancements and answering these questions. This paper argues that Bulgakov’s Sophiology, particularly his theology of human creativity and belief that we can and should anticipate the spiritual bodies that we will have in the general resurrection, offers a framework for assessing the morality of technological alterations to our present bodily existence from an Orthodox perspective. (shrink)

Treatise with auto-commentary on Dvaita philosophy.

Грамматика разума представляет собой новую для нашего времени науку, хотя создана она была еще в первой трети XIX века великим немецким ученым В. Гегелем. В предлагаемой Вашему вниманию книге данная наука впервые излагается в краткой доступной форме.

Work on Mimamsa philosophy; includes Āśutoṣiṇī commentary and Hindi translation.

Explanation of terms in Mimamsa, an orthodox school in Hindu philosophy.

Explanation of terms in Mīmāṃsā, an orthodox school in Hindu philosophy.

On Vedanta; includes original text in Sanskrit with Malayalam translation and exhaustive explanation.

Sanskrit text with autocommentary on Advaita philosophy by Kr̥ṣṇapaṇḍita, 18th century: based on rare manuscripts.

Interpretation of Brahmasūtra of Bādarāyaṇa from Advaita view point.

Compendium of the Advaita school in Hindu philosophy.

On theory of reasoning in Nyaya and Vaiśeṣika school of Hindu philosophy.

It begins by suggesting that it would be reasonable to accept the idea that theories of conversation and theories of argumentation are closely related. Working on the assumption that there is a close relationship between the two, it looks at some cross-cultural scenarios, and show how our theories of conversations generate implausible conclusions if asked to account for these scenarios. These conclusions, it shows, arise due to culture-specific assumptions made by theories of conversation.

Work on Sankhya system in Hindu philosophy; includes commentaries.

Building on A.V. Smirnov’s distinction between substantive and process logic, the author evaluates the position of S.N. Bulgakov laid out in “The Tragedy of Philosophy”. The article shows that the judgment “I am A”, which Bulgakov considers the fundamental principle of thought and the basis for defining the Self as a hypostasis, cannot be a form of defining the Self as an individual. Individuality is not defined within the framework of substantial logic (“I am A”), but defines itself (...) within the framework of process logic (“I affirm A”). The author considers three forms of affirmation of the Self: affirmation as performativity, affirmation as negation, and affirmation as productive action. Conclusion: the being of the Self, which requires the active action of the Self itself, is the ontological basis for the existence of process logic. (shrink)