First of all, I should like to express my gratitude to the organizers of this discussion for their initiative in posing and debating the question of Soviet philosophy. I cannot but note the timeliness of this question: today we are sobering up from the mindless nihilism toward all that is "Soviet" and we observe an increasingly sober and realistic, balanced, and analytic approach to the assessment of our past history, including the history of Russian social thought. Indeed, we cannot dismiss (...) as nonexistent or nonessential the range of problems touching on the nature and character of Soviet philosophy and its social functions. In my opinion they exist and they are essential in any event, even when it is claimed that Soviet philosophy was only a failure, a "hole" in the history of Russian philosophical thought. There are several questions: what caused this failure, who is responsible for it, and can one in that case describe Marxist philosophy as the absence of philosophy? (shrink)

Study of the social determinants of consciousness is one of the more timely problems of contemporary philosophy. It requires a complex study of various factors determining the social nature of human consciousness and the cultural-historical mediation of humankind's reflection of the world. Esthetics, which studies the phenomenon of esthetic consciousness, has a place among these scientific disciplines.

The name Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov has entered the ranks of the most outstanding thinkers who are worthy representatives of Russian philosophy. However, we shall not forget that this has become obvious only in recent years in the homeland of this unique philosopher. The scandal created by the publication in 1982 of Fedorov's works in the series Filosofskoe nasledie [Philosophical Heritage] is still remembered. On instructions from above, publication of the works was followed by dismissals, investigations, and allegations about the resurrection, (...) under conditions of "developed socialism," of the works of a "religious-conservative utopian"; there was also an anti-Fedorov campaign in the press. True, enthusiastic investigators—philosophers, literary figures, and artists—did not cease their efforts either before or after this ill-starred scandal to study and publish the works of this "strange" thinker. But it should be said—and this is pointed out in the book under review here—that under conditions of unfree development of philosophical thought, Fedorov's ideas were sometimes distorted to better accord with official attitudes, to make them "acceptable" for publication under the circumstances of that time, as well as for the sake of adapting them for the propaganda of various unofficial ideas, such as "native soil" ideas. Both Fedorov's person and his works have been surrounded by legend. Paradoxical though it may seem, foreign students of the works of the Russian philosopher have had more favorable conditions to study his legacy and have written many articles and books about him. Among them, the dissertation by Michael Hagemeister, Nikolai Fedorov. Studies of His Life, Works, and Influence, published as a book in the series Marburg Studies in the History and Culture of Eastern Europe in 1989, occupies a worthy place. (shrink)

The problem of the article is based on a long tradition of studying the category ‘antinomy‘ in the history of philosophy from antiquity until the early twentieth century. Antinomical thinking has particular importance for the spiritual life in the 20th century. The author draws attention to the fact that, for example, in the poetry of Thomas Stern Eliot antinomies and paradoxes are of philosophical and religious nature especially in then dealing with questions of reaching the Truth by rational way exclusively. (...) The basic material for studies are the works of modern Russian poets Olesya Nikolaeva, Sergei Kruglov, Timur Kibirov, Olga Sedakova and Helen Schwartz. It is shown how moral and philosophical themes and descriptions of the spiritual lives of the characters associated with the interpretation of ideas of compositions in the form of antinomies. The idea of the influence of the antinomies of thinking on aesthetics and system of images of Russian poets verses is justified. Article reveals the originality of each of the poets whose poems are analyzed in the work. The author concludes that modern poetry gives traditional antinomies personal psychological nature, but at the same time, problems and poetics of paradox are in tune with thinking of twentieth century as a whole - with its disastrous spirit, full of doubt and contradiction. (shrink)

In the creep literature, time has often been elevated from its role as a means of ordering events to that of a fully fledged state variable. It is hoped that this paper will highlight the dangers of this approach and will illustrate the proper role of time in mathematical physics, emphasizing the important distinction between coordinate and state variables.

The paper situates India’s global position with respect to its R&D and patent development and then highlights the current status of university system in India as a causative factor since majority of universities are busy in teaching merely how to qualify a paper-pencil test without much impetus on Research and Development. The paper also presents the perceived scenario of a national university and its characteristics. It also suggests ways in which universities can prioritize to produce researchers and innovators.

The problems of religion, or, more accurately, the critical-philosophical interpretations of Christianity, appeared quite early in the focal point of Marx's scientific interests. In the Germany of those times, these interpretations were means for discussing the everyday problems of social life; and political positions were frequently expressed in terms of Hegel's theory of religion, in various philosophical conceptions of the origin of Christianity, in disputes about the historical reality of Christ, etc.

In recent years the term "dialogue" has taken on a special nuance and, in the literature, usually refers to specially organized gatherings between Marxists and Christians. Intense arguments rage around the "dialogue." An extensive literature contains the most diverse explanations of its origins and content, objectives and possible outcomes. An attempt "on the run" to smash through this picket fence of judgments and single out some "rational core" is hardly promising in the final analysis. Another path is required, reconstructing the (...) very mechanism of the appearance of various evaluations out of some initial material, independent of the opinions of the theorists of the "dialogue." There appears to be no need for recourse to the history of the "dialogue," which is sufficiently known. Let us cite only certain factors. (shrink)