t. 1. Otrazhenie, poznanie, tvorchestvo.

t. 1. Filosofski sŭchinenii︠a︡, 1933-1937 ; Obshta teorii︠a︡ na izkustvoto -- t. 2. Teorii︠a︡ na otrazhenieto. 5. izd. -- t. 3. Izbrani filosofski sŭchinenii︠a︡, 1961-1976.

Copernican revolutions have often been the subject of discussion in the history of philosophy and of thought in the special sciences. Kant, for example, lived with the idea that it was necessary to carry out, and later that he had carried out, a Copernican revolution in the realm of philosophical thought. What was the essence of this "Copernican" revolution of Kant's?

In the past twenty years, all the key authors who wrote about the state of postmodernity either began to be engaged in other research areas (Fredric Jameson) or declared that the postmodernism is dead (Linda Hutcheon). Since 2000, when the fatigue from the postmodernism became evident to everyone, various researchers, critics and theorists began to offer their concepts of our era. However, all these theories, emphasizing the change of cultural paradigms, interpret culture traditionally not paying attention to total digitalization and (...) the introduction of new technologies into our lives. However, in two concepts of our time these processes become central. These are the concepts of the digimodern and automodern. The focus of this article is the idea of automodernism, proposed by the American social theorist Robert Samuels in 2007/2009. He believes that our world is characterized by two contradictory tendencies – automation and the desire for autonomy (personal freedom). From his point of view, the former often does not allow to reach the latter due to certain circumstances. Samuels, using the example of a car, a personal computer, the Internet, etc., shows what exactly our culture is in the broadest sense. Analyzing the concept of “digital youth,” he also pays attention to the formation of a new subjectivity of the era of automodernity. Finally, the most interesting part of the concept of automodernism, which is most relevant today, is the criticism of leftwing social and philosophical concepts (Slavoj Žižek, Jameson) and cultural theories (Henry Jenkins). At the end of the article, the author mentions Adam Greenfield’s latest book Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life. Thanks to this book, Samuels’ theory can be verified. (shrink)

The article discusses an actual problem of the contemporary social theory – a problem of post-postmodernism that is the answer to the question: what comes to replace the supposedly outdated postmodernism. Post-postmodernism in an umbrella term that brings together various concepts like digimodernism, automodernism, metamodernism, hypermodernism, supermodernism, etc. One of the replacing postmodernism theories is the French curator and art theorist Nicolas Bourriaud’s concept that was called “altermodern” or “other modernism.” In his previous books Bourriaud proposed to rewrite modernism and, (...) as the result, developed a new theory. The concept appeared in 2009 when Bourriaud presented the exhibition in London, timed to the publication of his manifesto Altermodern, and edited and published the book of collected papers of the same title. Globalization, which opened borders for art, is a central concept of the altermodernism theory. The main terms of altermodern are heterochrony (time diversity) and viatorisation (nomadism). The main social subject of the alternodern era is a free travelling artist, who interprets the meanings of “rewritten” art for the public. They are “rewritten” because Bourriaud proposes to use phenomena and products of past ages to make them work in a new way. However Bourriaud’s concept should be considered critically, as it was formerly done by several researchers. The article proposes a critical review that answers to the question: to what extent the idea of altermodern is heuristic and therefore it could compete with other concepts that abolish postmodern. The author gives a negative answer to this question first of all because altermodern just borrows a lot of elements of the language and apparatus of postmodernism and actually does not offer anything new. (shrink)

The question of the uniqueness [svoeobrazie] of Russian philosophy and its distinctive features has been around for more than a century. Since the 1840s, when Russian philosophers set about studying the history of philosophical thought in Russia, the question immediately arose as to whether one could speak of Russian philosophy as a distinctive [samobytnoe] and original phenomenon, or whether it would be more correct to speak of philosophy in Russia, i.e., the existence in Russia of philosophical ideas whose roots lay (...) not in Russia but beyond its borders, while in Russia they are merely disseminated, but not born. (shrink)

University philosophy 1 consists of the philosophical doctrines that were developed and taught at universities and some other secular institutions of higher education. The term "university philosophy" is conventional to some extent: it does not denote a type of philosophical theory but all the philosophical doctrines that were officially recognized or "sanctioned" by the relevant authorities . Academy philosophy, that is, the philosophy taught at theological academies, had a more determinate character because without exception it had to agree with Christian (...) doctrine and could not contradict it under any circumstances. University philosophy could have the most diverse foundations, but this did not exempt its programs and courses from government control. What is characteristic of university philosophy is the fact that it is professional philosophy; that is, a philosophy developed and taught by specialists in philosophy or professional philosophers. There were always university professors or lecturers in other disciplines who in their lectures and scholarly works touched on philosophical problems. But because these faculty members did not belong to the "corporation" of university philosophers, their philosophical ideas can hardly count as university philosophy, although these ideas sometimes had an important influence on the philosophical views of students and colleagues. (shrink)

The entire history of scientific and philosophical knowledge testifies that the significant difference between idealism and materialism does not lie in the alleged fact that materialism denies and idealism recognizes the significance of reason, i.e., the utilization in cognition of abstract ideas . Democritus' atoms, with all their geometrical and other attributes, are so small that they cannot be perceived either with the help, or by means, of an apparatus of hearing or organs of touch. Democritus arrived at the idea (...) of his "atoms" by the very same way in which Plato and Aristotle arrived at their "ideas" and "forms," which they contrasted to "matter" taken as "nonbeing" or "pure possibility." It is no accident that his work is titled Of Ideas. Democritus' atoms, Plato's ideas, Aristotle's forms, and later Leibniz' monads, Kant's "consciousness in general," and Hegel's "world spirit" are universal concepts, categories, or logical constructs. And, consequently, the deepest difference between Democritus and Plato, between Hegel and Feuerbach, lies in the fact that materialists, proceeding from the primacy and determining role of being, in the unity of being and consciousness, profess the theory of reflection, while all idealists without exception assert that it is not matter that is reflected in human ideas but, on the contrary, human ideas that are reflected in the empirical things and phenomena of the terrestrial world, which is contrasted fundamentally to the world of ideal essences, concepts, categories, and logical laws. (shrink)