'This book is a masterpiece of theoretical thought. It anticipates the actual achievements of much of what we now call sociolinguistics.

t. 1. Filosofii︠a︡ ; Izbrannye predislovii︠a︡ ; I︠A︡zykoznanie -- t. 2. Filologii︠a︡ ; Vospominanii︠a︡ i nabli︠u︡denii︠a︡ ; Pami︠a︡ti uchiteleĭ i kolleg ; Prilozhenie : A.N. Kolmogorov, semioticheskie poslanii︠a︡.

Мета роботи полягає у постметафізичній концептуалізації суб’єкта у клінічному дискурсі філософської антропології. Теоретичний базис дослідження поєднує засоби дискурсивної аналітики і загальні принципи історико-філософської науки. Логіка дослідження збігається із парадигмальним розумінням трансформацій суб’єкта та передбачає перехід від діагностичних стратегій аналізу індивідуального буття як основи патологічності суб’єкта до дослідження терапевтичних моделей концептуалізації комунікації як детермінанти патології та, нарешті, до аналітики суб’єкта в горизонті полісуб’єктної соціальності. Наукова новизна полягає у розкритті основних антропологічних моделей суб’єкта, що відповідають функціям діагностики й терапії. Показано, що, попри (...) революційність певних проектів, що дозволяє їх віднести до постметафізичних, у них залишаються рецидиви метафізичності, які існують в образі суб’єкта, що мислиться як основа справжності. Відповідно до критеріїв практичної імплементації ключовою є трансформація теорій суб’єкта, орієнтованих на самопокладання і автономію, у концепції, сфокусовані на відповідальності, турботі про суще і здійсненні у якості людини. Висновки. Доведено, що образ посткласичного суб’єкта, зосередженого на ідеалі власної автентичності, мусить діагностуватися як патологічний. Показана недоцільність акцентуації виключно на дискурсивності, розмові, результатом якої стає ствердження незалежності внутрішнього, хоч і маргінального світу девіантного суб’єкта. Обґрунтована необхідність доведення проблеми до логіки соціальної взаємодії, у якій виникає та форма смислової організації феноменів, що є нормальною структурою життєвого світу і на основі якої виникає повноцінний суб’єкт із уявленнями про власну самодостатність, і з турботою про суще. (shrink)

Introduction. Anthropotechnical turn in culture is based on educational practices that characterize a person as a subject and at the same time as an object of educational and corrective influence. Theoretical basis. We use the method of categorical analysis, which allows revealing the main outlook potentials of anthropotechnical turn as an essential transformation of modern socio-culture. Originality. For the first time, we conducted a categorical analysis of the glossary of anthropotechnical turn as dialectic of active and passive in the personal (...) and social modes such as education. Conclusions. The anthropotechnical turn of modern socio-culture means the actualization of the dialectic of active and passive in the process of socialization and formation of a person in a modern society. The world-view potential of the anthropotechnical turn is producing a new maxim and stratagem of person's behaviour through the formation of a new way of self-identification and self-esteem. The modern educational system, given the theory of anthropotechnical rotation, should change the content of timological energies from obedience to self-actualization and self-improvement. A prerequisite for this task is the change in the motivation of the education sector and the improvement of the social status of the teacher as an intellectual and leader of opinion. The analysis of the specificity of the information society and its determinatory impact on the individual provides grounds for identifying modern culture as a culture of lost opportunities. Thus, the main cause of disorientation and ignorance of a person is not the lack of information, but the lack of motivation. Therefore, the fundamental principles of anthropotechnical turn are productive in solving pressing problems of our time. (shrink)

t. 1. Dialog s V. V. Davydovym -- t. 2. Nereshennye problemy razvivai︠u︡shchego obrazovanii︠a︡.

-- v. 2. Pami︠a︡ti Vitalii︠a︡ Ivanovicha Svint︠s︡ova.

This essay fills in some historical, conceptual, and pedagogical gaps that appear in the most visible and recent professional efforts to “revive” Philosophy as a Way of Life (PWOL). I present “American Philosophy and Self-Culture” as an advanced undergraduate seminar that broadens who counts in and what counts as philosophy by immersing us in the lives, writings, and practices of seven representative U.S.-American philosophers of self-culture, community-building, and world-changing: Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790), Frederick Douglass (1818–1895), William Ellery Channing (1780–1842), Henry David (...) Thoreau (1817–1862), Margaret Fuller (1810-1850), Henry Bugbee (1915–1999), and Gloria Anzaldúa (1942–2004). Students enter the class with preconceptions about who philosophers are, what they do, how they write, and the languages in which they write. Students walk out with new senses of self, place, and language that emerge through new ways of seeing, doing, and writing philosophy. (shrink)

On the philosophy of Śaṅkarācārya; papers presented at National Seminar on Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, organized by Sahitya Akademi in collaboration with the Department of Sanskrit, Pondicherry University in 1989.

A guide to self-improvement from the great thinkers of Judaism.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the variability of the "Self-made-man" idea in the context of the Christian Middle Ages in its primarily historical and philosophical presentation. Research is based on the historical and philosophical analysis of the medieval philosophy presented foremost by the works of Aurelius Augustine, P. Abelard, Thomas Aquinas, and also by the modern researches of this epoch. Theoretical basis. Historical, comparative, and hermeneutic methods became fundamental for this research. Originality. The conducted analysis allowed to (...) draw a conclusion that, despite the still existing view of the Middle Ages as a kind of an ideological gap in the formation of the self-determination idea, the Christian philosophy of this period not only does not reject but also gives essentially the universal character of the ancient intention to recognize the individual’s right to self-determination and self-government, makes it not only religiously acceptable but also obligatory. Conclusions. Despite to general theocentrism, providentialism and fatalism of Christian medieval philosophy and culture in general, at its epicenter there is a man of a special type, focused on preserving spiritual autonomy and identity in the social dimensions of their existence, and at the same time, on personal responsibility for their own destiny. Such focus became a logical and somewhat unexpected result of the complex interaction of numerous factors of medieval culture, as well as the ideas and intentions inherited from Antiquity. In particular, the idea that a person who does not act freely cannot be morally responsible for what he does, as well as the intentions of the ancient sage to autonomy, autarky, and apoliticism. In the Middle Ages, this intention became essentially universal, as it became a right, even an obligation of every Christian to be free, at least from the worldly, in determining and realizing his own destiny. The gradual compromise recognition that personal salvation is possible only as a result of synergy, i.e. the co-participation of God’s grace and human freedom, legitimizes and strengthens its focus on active personal efforts and personal responsibility for one’s own salvation, in fact for one’s own destiny. All this in historical perspective was found in its radicalized and purified from all sorts of mystical and religious layers of expression in the idea of "Self-made-man". (shrink)