Purpose of the article is the reconstruction of ancient Greek and ancient Roman models of religiosity as anthropological invariants that determine the patterns of thinking and being of subsequent eras. Theoretical basis. The author applied the statement of Protagoras that "Man is the measure of all things" to the reconstruction of the religious sphere of culture. I proceed from the fact that each historical community has a set of inherent ideas about the principles of reality, which found unique "universes of (...) meanings". The historical space acquires anthropological properties that determine the specific mythology of the respective societies, as well as their spiritual successors. In particular, the religious models of ancient Greece and ancient Rome had a huge influence on formation of the worldview of the Christian civilization of the West. Originality. Multiplicity of the Olympic mythology contributed to the diversity of the expression forms of the Greek genius, which manifested itself in different fields of cultural activity, not reducible to political, philosophical or religious unity. The poverty of Roman mythology was compensated by a clear awareness of the unity of the community, which for all historical vicissitudes had always remained an unchanging ideal, and which was conceived as a reflection of the unity of the heavens. These two approaches to the divine predetermined the formation of two interacting, but conceptually different anthropological paradigms of Antiquity. Conclusions. Western concepts of divinity are invariants of two basic theological concepts – "Greek" and "Roman". These are ideal types, so these two tendencies can co-exist in one society. The Roman trend continued to be realized by the anti-Roman religion, which took Roman forms and Roman name. Iconoclasm was a Byzantine version of the Reformation, promoted by the Isaurian emperors and failed due to the strong Hellenistic naturalistic lobby. Modern "Romans" are trying to get rid of the last elements of religious naturalism, and modern "Greeks" are trying to preserve the Hellenic elements in Christianity. Patterns can be transformed, but the observational view will still be able to identify their lineage. The developed model allows a deeper understanding of the culture of both ancient societies, as well as the outlook of Western man. (shrink)

Purpose. Reconstruction of Empedocles’ doctrine from the point of view of philosophical anthropology. Theoretical basis. Methodological basis of the article is the anthropological comprehending of Empedocles’ text fragments presented in the historical-philosophical context. Originality. Cognition of nature in Ancient Greece was far from the ideal of the objective knowledge formed in modern times, cognition of the world as it exists before man and independently of him. Whatever the ancient philosophers talked about, man was always in the center of their attention. (...) I proposed an anthropological version of the interpretation of the doctrine of Empedocles, within the framework of which various elements of his concept fit into a consistent model. Conclusions. Empedocles’ anthropology is based on the recognition of several fundamental things. First of all, there is no death. Second, there is no fundamental difference between human and celestial. This line is conventional and under certain conditions one can overcome it. Cod can become a human, and a human can become God. Teaching of evolution is also double. Not only physical shell evolves, keeping only the most adapted species, but the soul too. The latter can both ascend to the gods and go down to the bushes and fish. Purification of the soul and mastering the magic of the elements gives an impetus for a correct direction of evolution. Empedocles is an anthropologist-practitioner, who shows by his example that a human can cope with all the elements and reach divinity. He chose the elemental ingredients for penetrating the Fortunate Isles, leaving the instructions on how to become God. (shrink)

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.

Tom 1. Ontologii︠a︡, gnoseologii︠a︡ i metodologii︠a︡ nauki, logika -- t. 2. Sot︠s︡ialʹnai︠a︡ filosofii︠a︡ i filosofii︠a︡ politiki -- t. 3. Filosofskai︠a︡ antropologii︠a︡ i filosofii︠a︡ kulʹtury -- t. 4. Filosofii︠a︡ dukhovnosti, obrazovanii︠a︡, religii.

Opstellen eerder verschenen in het Nederlands Tijdschrift voor rechtsfilosofie en rechtstheorie en in andere periodieken.

A large number of definitions of the concept “model” have been given by various authors in recent years. Thirty-seven definitions are listed by A. I. Uyemov in a recent monograph. This list is somewhat one-sided since it contains a disproportionate number of references to the work of Soviet authors. However, most of the important definitions given by Western writers are included. I shall give three definitions, all of great generality, so that various types of models, replicas, maps, theories and, most (...) importantly, cybernetic models, are included. The advantage of this high degree of generality, or all-inclusiveness, is that the task of the investigator of uses of models in science, is reduced to classifying the various types of models, their construction, function, and structure, thus avoiding indecisive arguments such as the Duhem–Campbell controversy, so perceptively discussed by Mary Hesse. (shrink)

The main result is that is no effective algorithmic answer to the question:how to recognize whether arbitrary modal formula has a first-order equivalent on the class of finite frames. Besides, two known problems are solved: it is proved algorithmic undecidability of finite frame consequence between modal formulas; the difference between global and local variants of first-order definability of modal formulas on the class of transitive frames is shown.

The prevailing philosophical mood among those physicists today whose interests are mainly in the field of modern atomic theory, is some form of positivism. This is true not only of the leaders in the field of quantum mechanics, as for instance Heisenberg, Jordan, and Dirac, in whose writings on the philosophical aspects of the recent revolutionary advances in physics the positivistic tendency is clearly visible, but also of the rank and file of competent students of the modern quantum theory.

The main article is devoted to the historical and philosophical reconstruction of controversy between Vladimir Solovyov and the authors of the “Faith and Reason” - a magazine of the Kharkov Theological Seminary. This controversy took its place in the “theological and journalistic” or the “theocratic” period of Solovyov’s works. Particular attention is paid to the disputes of Solovyov and T. Stoyanov, A.P. Shost'in and the French Orthodox priest Fr. Vladimir Gette on the theory of dogmatic development in the church. In (...) the context of this controversy, the arguments for the “defense” of Solovyov's position, cited in the magazine “Orthodox Review” by a theologian and Konstantin Leontyev's follower Ivan Kristi are also analyzed. The reception of Solovyov's theocratic ideas and reaction to his ecclesiastical views in both the Catholic and Orthodox circles of Russian and Western society is shown. Especially it concerns the criticism of Solovyov’s ideas in the pages of the French magazines “L’Univers”, “L'Union Chrétienne”, “Revue d’Eglise greque-unie”, etc. The evolution of Solovyov's views on the problem of the union of Eastern and Western churches, the renewal of church communication between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, the main result of which was his fundamental but unfinished work “The History and Future of the Theocracy” was demonstrated. A conclusion about the “superficiality” of the judgments of the majority of Vladimir Solovyov's ideological opponents, as well as later interpreters of his legacy, following the French Jesuit Michel d'Erbigny, who tried to present him as a “Russian Newman” who converted from Orthodoxy into the Catholic faith is drawn. It is shown that Solovyov’s projects of the “religion of the Holy Spirit” and the “Universal Church”, created on its basis, should be considered primarily in the context of his own philosophical quest, and not in connection with the confessional and ideological divergences of his time. (shrink)

We present a modernized proof, with a modification by M.A. Shtan’ko, of the Markov theorem on the unsolvability of the homeomorphy problem for manifolds. We then discuss a proof of the S.P. Novikov theorem on the unrecognizability of spheres for n≥5, from which we obtain a corollary about unrecognizability of all manifolds of dimension at least five. An analogous argument then proves the unrecognizability of stabilizations of all four-dimensional manifolds. We also give a brief overview of known results concerning algorithmic (...) recognizability of three-dimensional manifolds. (shrink)