Contributed research papers chiefly on various aspects of Indic philosophy, Vedic literature, etc.

Festschrift in honor of V.N. Jha, b. 1946, Indologist; comprises contributed papers on various aspects of Vedic literature and philosophy.

The article analyzes the creativity of one of the most famous Russian neokantians Boris V. Yakovenko. Despite the fact that the work of Yakovenko becomes the subject of analysis of an increasing number of researchers both in Russia and abroad, it has not yet taken place in a systematic analysis. The article attempts to consider the philosophical creativity of the Russian philosopher systematically, revealing both the main directions of European thought that had the greatest influence on the position of Yakovenko (...) and the main areas of philosophy to which the efforts of the national thinker were directed. These, according to the author, include the history of philosophy and the system of so-called transcendental pluralism. It is pointed out that the history of philosophy for Yakovenko is a single holistic process and therefore is the history of the development of philosophical ideas, and not the history of life and work of individual philosophers. According to Yakovenko, the general philosophical scheme of historical development looks like this: from Greek cosmism to German epistemology and the beginning ontological turn in modern philosophy. There is also the belief of B.V. Yakovenko that there is no national philosophy. In his opinion, philosophy, as well as science in General, can only be international. His second main thesis concerning the development of philosophy is that philosophy should be independent from other branches of human knowledge and knowledge. She must not be a servant of theology or science. The article also presents various stages of the Russian philosopher's development of his version of the concept of pluralistic philosophy. According to Yakovenko, only pluralistic philosophy is able to know the essence as the main object of philosophy. (shrink)

Topics in Cognitive Science, Volume 14, Issue 2, Page 414-425, April 2022.

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

В форме увлекательных бесед показаны не только высоты и бездны европейской философии, но и значительные достижения русской философской школы, уходящей своими корнями в православное мировосприятие. Для всех, кто хочет научиться серьезно мыслить.

Specific character of globalization can be understood only in connection with deep crisis of the nation-state and thus with sovereignty. The sovereignty organically includes territory. During globalization territory factor is not anymore the key principle of social and cultural life. Such phenomenon as Islamic fundamentalism (Islamism) fits quite well the structure of the theory of globalization in postmodernist interpretation. For Islamism as a subject of the world order the determining identity (as sets of the ontological aims determining its outlook and (...) purposes of political activity), i.e. determining, basic, fundamental to self-determination and activities is a creation of the Islamic world order, the world of Caliphate. Thus the Islamic fundamentalism focuses on universal nature of its identity. This activity ignores norms of international law and denies its key positions, such as state sovereignty, territorial integrity, firmness of borders, etc. Tolerance is an integral feature of the sovereignty. Weakening of sovereignty in conditions of globalization causes danger of strengthening of intolerance. Recognition of uniqueness, peculiarity and other civilization identity is a key to peaceful settlement of problems in conditions of the new global order as well as to establishment of philosophy of tolerance. (shrink)

It was my good fortune to work on the journal Voprosy filosofii for five and a half years, from mid-1962 to the end of 1967. I underscore "good fortune" because this was an interesting and, as it became clear later on, quite an important period in the journal's history; the team on which I worked was full of life, active, industrious, full of good will, and did everything to make Voprosy filosofii a truly professional philosophical journal; and, finally, all of (...) us who worked at that time on the editorial staff were thirty-five years younger than we are now. (shrink)

Our present cheerless existence compels us involuntarily to doubt the correctness of many of the propositions of the Soviet "social philosophy" that for many years, under the title "historical materialism," was officially proclaimed to be the "only correct" and "truly scientific" theory of social development, a theory that demonstrated the inevitability of the replacement of capitalism by socialism.

When the Nineteenth All-Union Party Conference was taking place, tens of millions of people followed its course. Literally the entire country was drawn into those heated debates in the congress hall. One can say without exaggeration that the conference was a revelation. It showed that it is possible to live differently from the way we have been accustomed, or the way we have learned over many decades, i.e., to say what we think and what we want to say, not somewhere (...) in a back corridor but in public, even at a top Party forum. All this is the result of that mighty revolution in consciousness that began in people's minds that memorable April of 1985. And the press is today playing a special role in that revolution. (shrink)

At present, as the paper states, social philosophy and philosophy of history – are generally considered to be independent domains. This is evidenced by the fact that each of the above‐named domains has to be discussed in a separate congress section, the practice which was common for previous congresses as well. It is argued in the paper, that social philosophy and philosophy of history are the two most important aspects of the integral philosophical study of society. It is impossible to (...) say which aspect is dominating. The report contains a number of arguments to support this point of view. Possible reasons for such a “division of labor” in European philosophical thought and its consequences are exposed. The question arises: why are social philosophers incline to discuss a correlation between social philosophy and theoretical sociology and don’t like to discuss a correlation between social philosophy and philosophy of history? And why are philosophers of history so reluctant to discuss ontological issues of society? (shrink)

Dialogue is the form proper to the new thinking. To resolve the global problems of the modern world and perestroika, we should have a thorough understanding of history, of all the participants in historical processes , and of ourselves. But our stereotypes are different: he who is not with us is against us; our mistakes are accidental, but the mistakes of those who think differently are inevitable. What kind of dialogue and mutual understanding is this? What we have is a (...) didactic and debunking monologue, a bellicose self-defense, and an aggressive accusation. Find the guilty party! (shrink)

The association of Berdiaev's name with the phenomenon of perestroika seems strange at first glance and even illogical. But perestroika, which is proceeding—or, more precisely, is trying to proceed—under the sign of an intellectual renaissance, has naturally aroused interest in the names of Russian philosophers who have undeservedly been forgotten. One of these is N.A. Berdiaev . He was a Russian patriot and was profoundly concerned with Russia's fate. Living in a critical period, Berdiaev reflected a great deal over the (...) past, present, and future of his Motherland, advanced the idea of its transformation, and even used the term "perestroika" in doing so. His thoughts concerning Russia's political renewal are profound, and some of them are applicable to the present life of our society. (shrink)

Although research into the biosemiotic mechanisms underlying the purposeful behavior of brainless living systems is extensive, researchers have not adequately described biosemiosis among neurons. As the conscious use of signs is well-covered by the various fields of semiotics, we focus on subconscious sign action. Subconscious semiotic habits, both functional and dysfunctional, may be created and reinforced in the brain not necessarily in a logical manner and not necessarily through repeated reinforcement. We review literature that suggests hypnosis may be effective in (...) changing subconscious dysfunctional habits, and we offer a biosemiotic framework for understanding these results. If it has been difficult to evaluate any psychological approach, including hypnosis, this may be because contemporary neuroscience lacks a theory of the sign. We argue that understanding the fluid nature of representation in biological organisms is prerequisite to understanding the nature of the subconscious and may lead to more effective of treatments for dysfunctional habits developed through personal experience or culture. (shrink)