The article examines the main ideological content of the work of the community of scientists and philosophers, which entered the history of philosophy under the name “The Vienna Circle”. Representatives of this association viewed their main methodological task in the logical analysis of the language of science in order to eliminate metaphysical – pseudoscientific – concepts. They investigated the structure of scientific theories, the functions of the theory – explanation and prediction, the processes of justification, confirmation and refutation of theories. (...) Their results were widely recognized, set down essential influence on scientific problems as well as style of philosophical and academic studies, and are still included in textbooks on the philosophy of science. The members of the Vienna Circle created the first holistic concept of science, which gave impetus to subsequent developments in the philosophy of science and served as example for the construction of similar concepts. The socio-ideological prerequisite of this philosophical movement was the task of creating a new scientific view of the world, opposing philosophical pessimism and anti-scientism. This worldview, however, was not naive-scientististic, but presented a synthetic project at the intersection of natural science, philosophy, art and social pedagogy. (shrink)

In recent decades, more and more works have appeared, the authors of which are trying to predict possible scenarios for the future development of mankind. This article discusses 5 such scenarios: F. Fukuyama believes that all peoples and countries of the globe in the XXI century will develop in the direction of building a liberal-democratic society; Representatives of the Club of Rome in their latest report, based on statistical data of industrial development, substantiate the idea that by the middle of (...) the XXI century. the Earth’s biosphere will become unsuitable for human life and humanity will begin to die out; representatives of the transhumanist movement in their “Manifesto” set themselves the goal of replacing the human biological body with an artificial body by 1245 and thereby saving people from diseases, from old age and even from death itself; English economist D. Susskind in his book “The Future Without Jobs” predicts that in the next two to three decades, robots and artificial intelligence will force people out of all areas of production and discusses the question of how people who are deprived of the opportunity to work will live; Finally, the Israeli historian Yu.N. Harari in his extensive work “Homo Deus” paints a picture of the fact that scientific and technological progress will turn “reasonable man” into “divine man” in the near future. Assessing all these scenarios for the future development of mankind, one involuntarily comes to the conclusion that they all speak of the death of mankind in the near future. (shrink)

Two philosophers and prominent public figures explore the spiritual and cultural framework within which Russia's crisis and prospects for social renewal must be understood. Their discussion ranges over several main areas of concern in Russia today: the nature of the person and her capacities as social actor, the forms of sociality Russia has known as seen against the background of Orthodoxy and Communism, and Russia's tragedy during the seventy-five years of Communism. A third path is envisaged for Russian renewal based (...) on geopolitical, cultural, and spiritual constants in the history of the nation. (shrink)

Historical memory is considered in this article as one of the most important pillars of national identity. In addition to identifying some of the characteristic features of national, historical memory, the author shows that historical memory is influenced by two factors—the direct experience of the witnesses and participants of past events and official propaganda. As the direct witnesses of events disappear, the possibility of reconstructing and distorting historical memory increases. The ideas put forth in this article are formulated based on (...) the historical memory of World War II in the United States, Russia, Germany, and other European countries. (shrink)

The article discusses the issue of the nature of analytic philosophy. It is shown that in the 1920s–1940s it was a certain philosophical school, whose representatives were united by some initial principles. Analytic philosophers saw the main task of philosophy in the analysis of the language of natural sciences, in establishing logical connections between scientific propositions, in the empirical substantiation of scientific theories and in the elimination of speculative concepts and proposals from the language of science. The tool for such (...) analysis was the mathematical logic created at the beginning of the 20th century by G. Frege, A.N. Whitehead, B. Russell. Another characteristic feature of the analytic tradition was a negative attitude toward philosophical speculation. Adherents of this tradition believed that philosophy does not provide knowledge about the world, therefore, it is not a science. Analytic philosophers have made a significant contribution to the methodology of scientific knowledge, offering an accurate description of the hypothetical-deductive structure of scientific theory, methods of scientific explanation and prediction, verification, confirmation and refutation of scientific statements. In the late 1930s, most of the analytic philosophers emigrated to England and the United States. The analytic movement is gradually losing its integrity and loses the features of a philosophical school. There is a rejection of mathematical logic as the main means of analysis, the connection with the natural sciences has been lost. In the second half of the 20th century, analytic philosophy from a specific philosophical school turns into a certain style of thinking of the philosophers of various philosophical research areas and orientations. (shrink)

In attempting to realize the tasks facing Soviet philosophers today, at a crucial moment in the life of our society, and in an attempt to contribute as best we can to clearing up the intellectual atmosphere of the country, we turn again to the question of what philosophy is, what its place in the life of society is, and how it can and must develop. The present article is dedicated to an examination of one of the aspects of this complex (...) question. (shrink)

The author considers a problem of understanding. He claims that we understand texts, cultural objects rather than a man. He considers understanding as a process of interpretation of linguistic expressions and cultural objects. The author observes two sides of the meaning of linguistic expressions: a general (or social) one, which is common in a certain language community, and a personal one, which defines personal understanding. It is argued that mutual understanding is possible only on the stage of general meaning. However, (...) the exchange of personal meanings is a very sophisticated process. (shrink)

The paper discusses several problems of metaphilosophy that were explored in the philosophical literature in Russia. Metaphilosophy tries to understand what is philosophy, what problems philosophers are dealing with, which methods they employ in their investigations, the nature of philosophical statements and so on. Philosophers in Russia tended to think of philosophy as a special type of worldview that exists together with the ordinary worldview and religious worldview. The author defines worldview as a collection of basic beliefs about the surrounding (...) world, society, human being, the relations existing between individuals and society, about values and ideals. It is underscored that a worldview is always somebody’s worldview (it belongs either to an individual or a social group). The worldview problems explored by philosophers remain the same throughout thousands of years; what changes is how they are stated in different times. Every human being faces these problems if she has realized herself as an autonomous being and the reality splits for her into the I and the non-I. All philosophical problems revolve around three basic questions: what is the non-I (i.e. nature and society)? - this is the ontological question; what is I? (the anthropological question); what relations exist between the I and the non-I (the epistemological, axiological, ethical and other questions). The author also explores several stages of a philosophical investigation: an internal dissatisfaction with existing solutions, a search for a new perspective (meaning, idea, interpretation), development of the found solution. The author points at a number of characteristics that make philosophy different from science: philosophical statements and conceptions cannot be verified or refuted by experience, they are not universal. It is argued that the notion of truth in its classical interpretation cannot be applied to philosophical statements because the latter cannot be true or false. The author concludes that philosophical statements or conceptions express the subjective opinion of a given philosopher about the world and the human being. An obvious evidence for this is the existing pluralism of philosophical systems, schools, and trends. (shrink)

The author presents a philosophical critique of the basic ideas of logical semantics, as developed by Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein. He argues that these logicians understated the importance of the sense of linguistic expressions.

The text continues the translation series of William Whewell's (1794-1866) book «The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, founded upon their history» (Book III The Philosophy of the Mechanical Sciences, Chapter VI On the Establishment of the Principles of Statics). The chapter devoted to the establishment of such concepts of statics and dynamics, as equilibrium, measure of statical forces, gravity, oblique forces, and the parallelogram of forces. Whewell substantiates the fundamental principles of mechanics by analogy with the axioms of geometry, but (...) his justification of the necessity of mechanical laws is based on the idea of causality. Translated by A.L. Nikiforov, comments by I.T. Kasavin and T.D. Sokolova. (shrink)