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.

Издание содержит: нравственность между эзотерикой и правом, геополитика нравственности, либерализованная Россия и либеральная эзотерика и др.

В монографии в широком историческом контексте охарактеризован процесс возникновения и развития сущностного наполнения принципа природосообразности в истории филисофско-педагогической мысли от античного периода по Новое время.

At Abhidharmakośa VI .3, Vasubandhu analyses the phrase sandhāya ... bha $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s} $$ ita $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{m} $$ as used in the sūtras. Here bhā $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s} $$ ita $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{m} $$ mentions an utterance, to which a figurative sense is ascribed by the gerundive (not noun) sandhāya. The audience is split: some are intended to understand the literal, others the figurative sense. Vasubandhu's analysis works well for sandhābhā $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s} $$ a etc. in the Saddharmapu $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}$$ $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{d}$$ arīka and the Guhyasamājatantra. (The Hevajratantra is (...) different and we consider it separately). Poussin's “arrière-pensée”, Edgerton's “real meaning” and “esoteric meaning”, and Wayman's “twilight language” are attractive in some cases but not all. Vasubandhu's analysis combined with Edgerton's “specially intended” (for ābhiprāyika) is much better; compare V. S. Bhattacharya's old paraphrase of this word “intended to imply or suggest something different from what is expressed by the words”. But Bhattacharya's widely accepted translation “intentional” for ābhiprāyika is misleading and misrepresents Vasubandhu, and we suggest ways of improving it in the light of the need for coherent translation, with the help of some considerations from Pā $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}$$ ini and from Montague semantics. (shrink)

At Abhidharmakośa VI .3, Vasubandhu analyses the phrase sandhāya ... bha $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s} $$ ita $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{m} $$ as used in the sūtras. Here bhā $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s} $$ ita $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{m} $$ mentions an utterance, to which a figurative sense is ascribed by the gerundive (not noun) sandhāya. The audience is split: some are intended to understand the literal, others the figurative sense. Vasubandhu's analysis works well for sandhābhā $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{s} $$ a etc. in the Saddharmapu $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}$$ $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{d}$$ arīka and the Guhyasamājatantra. (The Hevajratantra is (...) different and we consider it separately). Poussin's “arrière-pensée”, Edgerton's “real meaning” and “esoteric meaning”, and Wayman's “twilight language” are attractive in some cases but not all. Vasubandhu's analysis combined with Edgerton's “specially intended” (for ābhiprāyika) is much better; compare V. S. Bhattacharya's old paraphrase of this word “intended to imply or suggest something different from what is expressed by the words”. But Bhattacharya's widely accepted translation “intentional” for ābhiprāyika is misleading and misrepresents Vasubandhu, and we suggest ways of improving it in the light of the need for coherent translation, with the help of some considerations from Pā $$\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{n}$$ ini and from Montague semantics. (shrink)

Монография предназначена для специалистов в области социальной философии, социологии и истории, а также для широкого круга читателей.

A modern stage of globalization is a historical and logical continuation of “an economical social formation” (K.G. Marx), a civilization (L.G. Morgan). The analysis of this globalization in philosophy and social sciences has an extremely contradictory character which is law-governed in the modern society. Modern globalization has been showing itself as a qualitatively new historical process since 1991. Judging from the positions of the dialectical materialistic theory of history (K.G. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin and others) it by its essence (...) has got a postneoimperialistic, antagonistic character. It’s main features, attributes has been revealed. It doesn’t solve any sharp global problems, but only aggravated and intensifies them. This globalization has greatly increased, made inhuman the process of “cosmopolitization” which developed during the whole existence of capitalism and imperialism. A total degradation and dehumanization of a social person have been taking place, interstate and civil burst into flames, mass disturbances arise, hundreds thousands of people die, genocide and depopulation of some peoples on the planet become “normal” including the countries of the UIS. Destructive process of modern globalization with the USA as the main “player” together with corresponding international institutions (WTO, ICF, World bank, NATO and other), TNC have been resisted in a definite way by antiglobalizing andalterglobalizing movement in many countries on the planet. (shrink)

Summary Ideomotor apraxia is a cognitive disorder in which the patient loses the ability to accurately perform learned, skilled actions. This is despite normal limb power and coordination. It has long been known that left supramarginal gyrus lesions cause bilateral upper limb apraxia and it was proposed that this area stored a visualkinaesthetic image of the skilled action, which was translated elsewhere in the brain into the pre-requisite movement formula. We hypothesise that, rather than these two functions occurring separately, both (...) are complementary functions of chains of ‘‘mirror neurons’’ within the left inferior parietal lobe. We go on to propose that this neural mechanism in the supramarginal gyrus and its projection zones, which originally evolved to allow the creation of a direct map between vision and movement, was subsequently exapted to allow other sorts of cross-domain mapping and in particular those sorts of abstract re-conceptualisation, such as metaphor, that make mankind unique. (shrink)