I would like to thank the participants in the discussion. The play has been written and produced, and it is difficult and even embarrassing for its author to talk about it. It is now the audience, readers, and critics who have the floor. The only thing that it is permissible for me to say, I think, pertains to the so-called subject matter, for people disagree about what it is.

The plot of I. Dvoretskii's The Man from Outside is simple. A young engineer, Cheshkov, is recruited from a new and exemplary enterprise to go to an old one with long-established traditions to bail out its most troublesome department. His former place of employment doesn't want to let him go, and at the new one he is given a hostile reception. The most acute kind of conflict arises. Things reach a point at which the executives over whom he has (...) been given authority offer resignations en masse, and the department's Party organization expresses lack of confidence in him. The question is settled in the statewide committee of the Party. Nonetheless, this concentration upon what might be called personal drama around the hero cannot overshadow the simple fact that the conflict between Cheshkov and the factory management is a conflict of a work situation in form only; in reality, it is a conflict between two sets of ethics, two styles of life. (shrink)

I think I would not err in saying that Dvoretskii's chronicle of our times, The Man from Outside, is stimulating unusual interest on the part of theater companies and audiences. It has been produced on two Moscow stages, something that is quite rare. It is playing in Leningrad, Kiev, Vilnius, Arkhangelsk, Barnaul, Vladivostok, Volgograd, Kuibyshev, Murmansk, Novokuznetsk, Petrozavodsk, Pskov, Sverdlovsk, Simferopol, Stavropol, and other cities. Judging by the reviews, the play and its productions are successful everywhere. It is as (...) hard to get a ticket to Moscow's Malaia Bronnaia Theater as to Spartacus at the Bolshoi or Hamlet at the Taganka. (shrink)

I should like to begin with something that has been spoken of more than once in today's discussion: that actually no one in the audience remains indifferent to Dvoretskii's play. When I try to understand the reason for the success of that play, I explain it to myself very roughly, and not at all in terms of scientific principles in the study of literature, by saying that Dvoretskii's play is not a work of illustration but one that tackles (...) a problem and touches upon acute and important questions that many had not thought about previously. Naturally, these problems are not by any means confined to some single factory in Leningrad. They arise everywhere, including in research institutions, about which I am in some position to judge. The arrival of "a man from outside" or of "people from outside" almost always creates a dramatic situation. People are carriers of specific traditions and ideas, and in conflicts among human beings, a genuine creative artist can detect those really existing in contemporary society. (shrink)

t. 1.Novoe mirovozzrenie i novai͡a teorii͡a nauki -- t. 2. [without special title].

Study on conduct of life of Muslim women and women in Islamic perspective.

Ėtika i metodologii︠a︡ nauki -- Filosofii︠a︡ tekhnonauki -- Gumanitarnai︠a︡ ėkspertiza -- Bioėtika kak prakticheskiĭ filosofskiĭ proekt -- Problemy "uluchshenii︠a︡" cheloveka.

Literature; hermeneutics; theory, etc.; history and criticism.

Данная работа является попыткой рассмотреть проблему рациональности, главным образом, как проблему познания, не исключая при этом ее мировоззренческого и аксиологического аспектов.

Cultural education for the soldiers of People army of Vietnam.

Many different writers have employed what might be termed the ‘existence criterion’ when offering realist analyses of perception. In all these realist accounts, a basic argument may be detected. If any experience—e.g. the having of either a sensory or a mental image—is to be a form of perceiving, then the statement reporting that experience must satisfy a condition which applies to all perceiving-statements. Any putative perceptual statement of the form ‘S perceives x’ must entail a statement to the effect that (...) x, or some y, does exist as a public perceptual object in S’s perceptual range. For example, my statement ‘I see Peter’ will be a proper perceptual statement only if Peter is a public perceptual object now in my line of vision, or only if I take some other public perceptual object now in my line of vision to be Peter. Statements about our having images of things, this basic argument continues, cannot satisfy this condition. The object imaged —e.g. Peter—is not always present in the subject’s perceptual range at the time of the imaging, and the subject does not necessarily take a public perceptual object in his perceptual range to be that object. Hence, any statement reporting our imaging something must be false if it is construed as a report of a perceiving. (shrink)

We do not usually draw conclusions and summarize the results of our round table meetings. The speakers share their ideas, divergent viewpoints are discussed, and a certain level of approach to the problems under discussion is formulated. Therefore, today I will also not attempt to draw a conclusion.