Today in education as well as in a society suppression and aggression reveal itself very actively. The word "suppression" in a modern society is used in many meanings; it includes all forms of physical, psychological and economic suppression. There is no system or mechanism to oppose it, to protect the education area of suppression and aggression, they are not outworked. Philosophy of education considers non-aggressive activity as a modern trend in Russian education, which developing non-aggressive relations as a standard of (...) social life will help the society to overcome the revealed suppression and aggression. Non-suppression is a principle, action, position. Non-suppression is an ideological, ethic and vital principle, which is based on recognition of all living, a man and his life, rejection of suppression as a way of relation of a man with the world, the nature and other people. There are many methods of non-suppressedactivity in education. First of all, it is a refusal of force; non-suppressed action as a collaboration, joint activity; non-suppressed action as a help; non-suppressed action as a reduction of aggressive value of opposite side. (shrink)
Does George Berkeley provide an argument for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God at Principles of Human Knowledge, part I, section 29? The standard answer is that he does. In this paper, we challenge that interpretation. First, we look at section 29 in the context of its preceding sections and argue that the most the argument establishes is that there are at least two minds, that is, that the thesis of solipsism is false. Next, we examine the argument in section (...) 29 in light of the conclusions Berkeley draws in sections 30–33. There Berkeley concludes that there is one cause of the ordered world of ideas, a cause he calls the "Author of Nature." We argue that Berkeley's Author of Nature is conceptually distinct from, although numerically identical with, the Judeo-Christian God, for whose existence Berkeley argues in section 146. Finally, we ask whether, if our conclusion is correct, it is significant that Berkeley drew a conceptual distinction between the Author of Nature and the Judeo-Christian God. (shrink)
Criticizing the works of "Western" specialists in semantics, Soviet academician M. M. Pokrovskij (1868-1942) comes to the conclusion that social factors are essential for semantic evolution, while psychological factors constitute an intermediate link between the "external" life of a society and the semantics of the corresponding language. This conception resembles the general explanations of semantic evolution proposed by N. Ja. Marr (1864-1934). Nevertheless, despite a number of common points in the semantic theories of these two researchers, Pokrovskij's attitude towards Marr (...) was negative: in particular, he disagreed with the thesis of the chronological primacy of Marr's discoveries in the domain of semantics. The article investigates why Pokrovskij had for a long time constituted an intermediate link between Russian and "Western" "traditions" in the field of semantics. (shrink)
I assert that Bulgarian journalists recruited during communism to also serve the government as intelligence agents had the opportunity to make moral choices despite the country's dictatorship. Post-communist discussions in Bulgarian media focused on the extent of guilt of journalists who acted as spies. The three possibilities of forgetting the past, punishing those who spied, or forgiving them, are considered. The article concludes that the spy/journalists cannot be forgiven because they violated moral principles that (...) had been vital in Eastern Europe even during the communist regimes; a democratic society should rely on journalists with no history of deceiving audiences. (shrink)
In this article we review the biosemiotic art exhibition «Signs of life» (Livstegn), that was organized by the Danish installation artist Morten Skriver and the biosemiotician Jesper Hoffmeyer in 2011 at the Esbjerg Art Museum (Denmark). The exhibition presented five central (bio)semiotic concepts using artistic tools: the semiosphere, the sign, semiotic scaffolding, semiotic freedom, and surfaces.
In the present-day information burst and information revolution epoch the mankind must realize the adaptation to the new conditions of its existence in the limited time. The most important problem is the problem of the human being successful adaptation to the modern information medium. The information medium is the factor demanding absolutely new adaptation of human being. Modern information medium specific character leads to correction of existing nature and social human being adaptation mechanisms and creation of new mechanisms. Information technologies (...) as a modern civilization core change not only quality and substance of present time human being life, but they threaten to transformate his way of existence in the modern world. (shrink)
The paper focuses on a particular episode in the (pre)history of semiotics in the USSR in the 1920s–1930s. At that time, an attempt to create an “integral” science was made by linguists, among whom N. Ja. Marr was one of the best-known. Several semantic laws formulated by Marr could be either reformulated in order to be applied to other disciplines (literary studies, anthropology, archeology, biology) or “proved” by the facts or discoveries drawn from them. Another “proof” that these linguistic theories (...) were correct consisted in the possibility of transferring the corresponding models and schemes from one field of knowledge to another: at that epoch the refusal to make a clear methodological separation between disciplines which were primarily concerned with “matter” and those that were more “spiritual” was an important tendency for scholars both in the Soviet Union and in other countries. (shrink)
The interview with one of the founders of the Tartu–Moscow school, semiotician Vyacheslav Vsevolodovich Ivanov (b. 1929) from August 2010, describes V. V. Ivanov’s opinions of several scholars and their work (including Evgenij Polivanov, Mikhail Bakhtin, Andrej Kolmogorov, Nikolaj Marr etc.), his relationships with his father Vsevolod Ivanov, as well as V. V. Ivanov’s views on the past and future of semiotics, with some emphasis on neurosemiotics, zoosemiotics, semiotics of culture, cybernetics, history of linguistics, study and protection of small languages. (...) The interview also deals with V. V. Ivanov’s book Even and Odd. (shrink)
In the late 1920s – early 1930s, the Russian poet and novelist Konstantin Vaginov (1899–1934) wrote four novels which reproduce various discourses pertainingto the Russian humanities (philosophy, psychology, linguistics, study of literature) of that time. Trying to go back to the source of the corresponding theories and “hidden” quotations by identifying their authors allows us to include Vaginov’s prose in the general intellectual context of his epoch. Analysing Vaginov’s prose in the light of the history of ideas enables us to (...) understand how a number of philological and philosophical trends were interpreted by particular groups of Soviet intellectuals (for instance, writers and poets who were Vaginov’s contemporaries). Besides, it allows us to propose a new interpretation of Vaginov’s novels and their evolution which corresponds to his perception of humanities around him: their many tendencies and peculiarities become unacceptable for the writer in the 1930s. (shrink)
