The Socio-Cultural and Philosophical Origins of Science discusses the formation of spiritual culture and reveals the prerequisites for the developments of philosophy (reflection), science (objectification), religion (spirituality), and art (conventionality) from a common root: animistic thinking. Philosophy emerges as reflexive thinking which transforms the animistic into the ideal, the polarization of which into a subject-object relation becomes the basis for the emergence and development of science. The study shows that any new thought in culture that answers the question of being (...) goes through the same stages of mysticism, poetics, rhetoric, grammar, logic, and mathematics. The book is designed for students to prepare for the PhD candidate examination in the philosophy of science, as well as for scholars (scientists) interested in the methodology of scientific knowledge. It would also appeal to both students and professors in various disciplines across humanities and social sciences, as well as to anyone interested in understanding the commonalities and differences among, and the origins of, philosophy, science, religion, and art. (shrink)

The ideas of R. G. Nazirov on the fact that relationship of F. M. Dostoevsky with his contemporary writers and thinkers was ‘silent collaboration‘ are elaborated in the article. It is shown that the attitude of Dostoevsky brothers’ journal ‘Vremya‘ to Tolstoy’s educational activity and creative work in the beginning of the 1860’s is the example of such ‘silent collaboration‘. The first comprehensive analysis of any and all references to Tolstoy presented in the journal ‘Vremya‘ was carried out: A. (...) U. Poretskiy’s note on the journal ‘Yasnaya Polyana‘, special anonymous article about Tolstoy’s journal, ‘Zhurnal’naya zametka‘ by Dostoevsky, articles by I. G. Dolgomest’ev ‘Nekotorye pedagogicheskie i nauchnye tendentsii‘ and ‘Skazanie o ’Durakovoi pleshi‘’, a series of articles by A. A. Crigoriev about Tolstoy’s stories and the article by Ya. P. Polonsky about ‘Kazaki‘. It is proved that Tolstoy, first of all, attracted Dostoevsky as a talented and indigenous educator, while his creative work was considered rather ambiguous within the journal. The current research is based on the set of literary methods including biographical, comparative, historico-literary, and intertextual. (shrink)

One of the trends of modern mass perception of Dostoevsky, denial and controversy with a classic, is described in the article. The work also contains a brief history of this tradition of perception. From the point of view of its structure, any renunciation of Dostoevsky or any polemics with him is founded on the rejection of the ‘fantasticality‘ of his poetics or the identification of the writer with one of his heroes. The paradigm of this receptive tradition was defined in (...) the first lifetime responses about Dostoyevsky. In the twentieth century, the controversy with Dostoevsky turned into a purely ideological plane. New rethinking of the writer began only in the middle of the century. The article gives notoriety to the unknown until recently historical source - youth diary of Romain Nazirov, who later became the largest Russian literary scholar. The most recent element of negative perceptive tradition of Dostoevsky - is rejection of him as of boring cultural stamp. It is noteworthy that in recent decades the trend of mass and elite culture is largely identical in relation to Dostoevsky . From this perspective, the article analyzes the series of mass and elite interpretations of Dostoevsky in Contemporary Culture. (shrink)