Frankfurt-type cases with covered manipulation received a great attention in the debates about freedom of will and moral responsibility. They pretend to give the refutation of the Principle of Alternative Possibilities and to show that we can intuitively blame or praise an agent who was not able to do otherwise. In this paper, I will try to make explicit some basic intuitions underlying the agent’s responsibility in Frankfurt-type cases, which were surprisingly ignored in the contemporary debates. The key intuition is (...) that the responsibility of the agent in Frankfurt-type cases is always grounded at the point of overcoming the uncertainty preceding action. This overcoming is crucially important for agent’s responsibility and immune to any manipulation of counterfactual intervener. (shrink)

This paper challenges the moral justificatory significance of the notion of basic desert. The notion of basic desert is commonly used in the literature to distinguish a specific sense of moral responsibility that depends on free will. In this sense, a person is morally responsible for an action if this action belongs to her in such a way that she would deserve to be blamed if she understood that it was morally wrong, and she would deserve to be praised if (...) she understood that it was morally exemplary. The central question of the paper concerns the role of the notion of basic desert in moral justifications of social practices including responsibility practices. I argue that the significance sometimes attributed to the notion of basic desert is largely a byproduct of its isolation from a larger context of other moral reasons and moral justifications. First, I introduce the concepts of special and general moral justifications and defend the central assumption behind these concepts. Next, I present a three-case argument that challenges the justificatory moral significance of the notion of basic desert by considering various logical roles that it might play in the general moral justification of various social practices. Finally, I apply this argument to Derk Pereboom’s theory of hard incompatibilism in order to show that moral justification of the revisionary part of his project does not depend on the belief in free will necessary for moral responsibility in the sense of basic desert. (shrink)

Aborigeny i robinzony -- Ot kakogo nasledstva my otkazyvaemsi︠a︡ -- Ot zakata do rassveta.

Pole metafiziki -- Antropologii︠a︡ i istorii︠a︡ -- Vdali i vokrug -- Puteshestvii︠a︡.

O dukhe voinstvennosti -- Fenomen prazdnichnoĭ draki -- Infernalʹnai︠a︡ tema v filosofii -- Mogi i ikh mogushchestva -- Chzhuan-t︠s︡y i daos Emeli︠a︡ -- Inʺekt︠s︡ii︠a︡ khaosa v struktury pori︠a︡dka.

I︠A︡korʹ : opyt primenenii︠a︡ odnoĭ metafory -- I︠U︡la : opyt metafiziki vrashchenii︠a︡ i pokoi︠a︡ -- Shvabra Vitgenshteĭna -- Ėto ne khukhry-mukhry! -- Vyletelo iz golovy (Variat︠s︡ii na temu odnogo simptoma) -- O posledneĭ nedogovorennosti -- Fenomenologii︠a︡ volka -- Vtorichnoe uproshchenie kak sposob obretenii︠a︡ pervonachala -- Repressii protiv mertvykh -- Tezisy o knige -- Publichka : iz lichnoĭ khroniki.

People often use indirect speech, for example, when trying to bribe a police officer by asking whether there might be “a way to take care of things without all the paperwork.” Recent game theoretic accounts suggest that a speaker uses indirect speech to reduce public accountability for socially risky behaviors. The present studies examine a secondary function of indirect speech use: increasing the perceived moral permissibility of an action. Participants report that indirect speech is associated with reduced accountability for unethical (...) behavior, as well as increased moral permissibility and increased likelihood of unethical behavior. Importantly, moral permissibility was a stronger mediator of the effect of indirect speech on likelihood of action, for judgments of one's own versus others' unethical action. In sum, the motorist who bribes the police officer with winks and nudges may not only avoid public punishment but also maintain the sense that his actions are morally permissible. (shrink)

This paper briefly surveys the intellectual context of the lecture “The Office of Justifying Faith" by John Henry Newman. Newman is an outstanding English theologian, writer and philosopher, who had a great influence on the development of the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches in the 19th and 20th centuries. Newman became one of the leaders of the so-called Tractarian Movement. Tractarians offered a radically new understanding of the relation between the Anglican Church and other ecumenical churches. The most famous expression (...) of this rethinking was the branch theory. According to this theory, the Anglican Church is one of the three branches of a single universal Church alongside the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. According to the Newman's doctrine of via media, Anglican Church represents the middle way between Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Churches. In the “Lectures on Justification" published in 1838, Newman applies the doctrine of via media to the set of problems that concern the Christian idea of justification. The lecture “The Office of Justifying Faith" is in this sense a very characteristic example of the doctrine of via media. Here Newman demonstrates the difference between the doctrines of the Anglican Church about the relationship between justification and faith and the doctrine of the Protestants about justification by faith only. (shrink)

This article discusses the foundation of ideas for Vyacheslav Ivanov’s interpretation of Pushkin’s poem. In The Gypsies, Ivanov sees a conflict between personal freedom and sobornost’ as revealed b...

Написанная доступным языком, книга представляет интерес не только для специалистов по литературоведению, но и для широкого круга читателей.

This paper examines the controversy between Franz von Baader and Schelling as it takes place in Schelling’s lecture course Das System der Weltalter. This particular instance of their disagreement involves Schelling criticising Baader for his notion of the biblical Elohim as divine proxies. The paper first provides a background to Baader-Schelling philosophical feud before examining Schelling’s remarks against Baader in the System der Weltalter. Then, Baader’s writings on Elohim are looked into in the light of their connection to Baader’s conception (...) of creation as falling-away and Baader’s source for interpreting Elohim as proxies, including Saint Martin and Kabbalah. Thereafter, Schelling’s criticism of Baader is analysed and interpreted in the context of the System der Weltalter. The paper aims to achieve several things: to show the presence of distorted kabbalistic influence in Baader and its discussion in Schelling; to revise Koslowski’s view on Baader’s creation narrative by pointing out how Baader’s Elohim/divine proxies function to form a rather dualistic relation between God and creation; and to interpret Schelling’s convoluted and difficult reply to Baader displaying that at stake between the two thinkers were questions of God’s ineffability and freedom as well as God’s involvement into creation. (shrink)

I. "Filosofskiĭ paroxod": k istorii voprosa -- II. Respressii i permanentnai︠a︡ ėmigrat︠s︡ii︠a︡ -- III. Overkili russkoĭ filosofii -- IV. Postsovetskiĭ period: v poiskakh identichnosti -- V. Vozvrashchenie "filosofskogo paroxoda" (2003) -- VI. "Filosofskie avtobusy" -- VII. Samolet-paroxod-"filosofskiĭ poezd" -- VIII. Afinskiĭ kongress: prikosnovenie k istorii (2013) -- IX. "Uchitʹsi︠a︡ bytʹ chelovekom": XXIV vsemirnyĭ filosofskiĭ kongress -- X. Mezhdu proshlym i budushchim.

Kulʹturologicheskie osnovy medit︠s︡iny -- Voprosy filosofii i medit︠s︡ina.

In the article, I try to refute an old and widespread superstition according to which the new political philosophy created by Niccolo Machiavelli breaks with classical political philosophy by taking a novel position toward the political; that is, that classics were idle “idealists” while Machiavelli is a coldblooded “realist”. To do that, I compare the most explicit part of The Prince (chapters XIV-XIX) with the end of the fifth book of Aristotle’s Politics and attempt to show that in the most (...) pivotal chapters of his most famous work, the Florentine, in fact, often borrows Aristotle’s advice on how to preserve a tyrannical rule. (shrink)