-

The relevance of the article is due to the authors attempt to apply some of the philosophical concepts of F.M. Dostoevsky to the comprehension of contemporary sociocultural reality. The purpose of this study is to clarify the reasons for the historically unfriendly attitude of Europe towards Russia by analyzing the works of F.M. Dostoevsky dedicated to this problem. In the process of writing the article, the published Diaries of the writer were used; diary entries unpublished during the writer's life; philosophical reflections contained in works of art, as well as applied modern scientific and popular science literature dedicated to the work of F.M. Dostoevsky. In the course of the analysis, it was found that the writer considered historical, confessional and moral reasons to be the main factors in the rejection of Russia by Europe, while he especially singled out disinterestedness incomprehensible to Europe as a characteristic of the Russian people. The authors draws attention to the fact that all the reasons for Europe's "remarkable dislike" for Russia, about which F.M. Dostoevsky, directly or indirectly associated with the Orthodox faith. Therefore, an attempt to actualize the worldview heritage of the great writer will certainly lead us to a dilemma: either to move from thoughts and words to actions, to religiously enlighten both ourselves and Europe; or to enclose our Orthodox heritage in a historical and cultural framework, eliminating the source of the reasons for our rejection by the European public, with all the ensuing consequences.

The article refutes the widespread view that Dostoevsky's Christian beliefs were strictly Orthodox. It is proved that Dostoevsky's religious and philosophical searches' central tendency is the criticism of historical, ecclesiastical Christianity as a false, distorted form of the teaching of Jesus Christ and the desire to restore this teaching in its original purity. Modern researchers of the history of early Christianity find more and more arguments in favor of the fact that the actual teaching of Jesus Christ is contained in that religious movement, which the church called the Gnostic heresy. The exact philosophical expression of the teaching of Christ was received in the later works of J.G. Fichte, whose ideas had a strong influence on the Russian writer. Like Fichte, Dostoevsky understands Christ as the first person who showed the possibility of revealing God in himself and gaining divine omnipotence and eternal life directly in earthly reality. In this sense, every person can become like Christ. Dostoevsky's main characters walk the path of Christ and show how difficult this path is. The article shows that Dostoevsky used in his work not only the philosophical version of true (Gnostic) Christianity developed by German philosophy (Fichte, Schelling, Hegel), but also the key motives of the Gnostic myth, primarily the idea that our world, filled with evil and suffering, is created not by the supreme, good God-Father, but by the evil Demiurge, the Devil (in this sense, it is hell).

The well-known epistolary conflict between Fyodor Dostoevsky and Nikolai Strakhov over the latter's slander of the great Russian writer's terrible sins is considered in the article from the point of view a philosophical anthropology and relations not two but between three participants of this story: Dostoyevsky, Strakhov and Tolstoy. This conflict is presented through anthropological, existential, and class prisms of description, based on a reconstruction of Strakhov's concept of man as a controversial, dual, and undefined being reflected in Dostoevsky's work. A direct relation between the definition of the dual nature of man in the works of Strakhov and Dostoevsky and interpersonal conflicts within "boundary forms of literature" is substantiated. Special attention is paid to the class of seminarians, the object of Dostoevsky's targeted criticism. He saw their worst characteristics in Strakhov personality. Tolstoy plays the role of an arbiter in this controversy, assessing the situation both in terms of literary, existential and religious thought. In the course of his examination of this conflict, his unexpected closeness to Dostoevsky was discovered in regard to assessment of Strakhov. The point of their coincidence was the "pink Christianity" of the writers, who justify man in a quite similar manner, in terms of their religious consciousness.

The article considers the logical and philosophical doctrine of sophists, which, according to some modern researchers, was more philosophical than their ancient critics recognized. A comparison of the provisions of Aristotle's hermeneutics with preserved fragments of Protagoras and Gorgias shows that the doctrine of sophists was a kind of holistic philosophy, which anticipated the philosophy of dialogue of the XX century. Despite the fact that the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle tried to overcome the relativism and anti-ontologism of the doctrine of sophists, some elements of its dialogism were preserved in subsequent philosophy in dialectics and rhetoric. The first thing you should pay attention to is the difference between the dialogical form of the presentation of philosophy in Plato and dialogue as the fundamental basis of thinking that we find among sophists. The dialogism preserved in the dialectic of Plato and the rhetoric of Aristotle is more a technical method of convincing the interlocutor than a hermeneutical basis, which it is in the philosophy of dialogue and in the method of Socratic discussion. The linguistic turn that occurred in the philosophy of the 20th century includes not only an increased interest in language and accuracy of expression. No less important is the new formulation of the question of the nature of the language. Is language a tool for the formulation of thought as Aristotle believed and followed by representatives of modern analytical philosophy, or does it have its own fundamental status, as representatives of the philosophy of dialogue believe? In this context, it is very important for the philosophy of dialogue to find in the thinking of the pre-Socratics those predecessors who already charted the paths for modern thought two and a half thousand years ago. The second part of the article discusses the forms of the dialogic thinking that have survived in philosophy after the sophists and the role of the sophists' hermeneutics in the formation of modern philosophy of dialogue.

If we want to define today's society in one word, trying to capture its meaning, it would be polarization. The interdependence between all social segments, articulated by globalization, has a double function: unpacking the identitary elements that enter in the structure of society (religion, politics, culture, science, etc.) and framing them in a relational dynamic. In this situation are Theology and Science, which, of course, maintain a number of components under their general names. Can we talk about a congruence between these two dimensions of human knowledge? Or they are developing completely separately and antagonistic in social progress? According to Ian G. Barbour there are four types of relation between Science and Religion: conflict, independence, dialogue, integration. This article intends to highlight the congruence between Theology and Science in the paradigm of neo-patristic synthesis , which explores in a phenomenological, theological and philosophical way the relationship between these two. Neo-patristic synthesis is a theological movement from the 20th century, generated by the initiative of the orthodox theologian G. Florovsky.

The article presents philosophical views on music in the context of the transformations of the worldview from Antiquity to the Modern Time. In this research author also mentions the contemporary issues, and uses her own philosophical concept of the music, which can be described as following: the value of music as a substance and the way of the valuable interaction of a person with the world affirm the essence of musical being, in which the invariable principle of Harmony, the principle of Chaos-Form movement, is preserved (see "The Value of the Music: Philosophical Aspect"). Music expresses the fluid essence of the world and changes of being in space and time. Philosophy of music as a field of philosophical knowledge considers music from ontological-epistemological and phenomenological-axiological prospectives, as something more than just a form of art. It explores the deep, ultimate foundations of the existence of music as such and the philosophical and aesthetic foundations of musical art. Since ancient times music has been a representation of the world in the human conscience and served as the harmonic equivalent of cosmological philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, and astrophysics (Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Aristoxenus, Porphyry et als.). The scientific view on music was enriched in the Modern Time by the expanded view on the cosmo-sound space reflected in musical art, which at the same time transforms the mathematical ideas of geometricity, squareness etc. The tendency to create integral world music in the musical practice of the XX-XXI centuries explains the attempt of mankind to present music by modern methods of composing musical art as an expression of fear towards the secret Harmony of universal existence, and, on the other hand - as a form of search for salvation and mental balance, intuitively reflecting what is happening in natural science, which more and more points to the abyss of unknowable universe, and the unstable place of man in the world.

In the article analyzes the origin of Chinese ritualism based on the ideas expressed by well-known Sinologist V.V. Malyavin. The ceremoniality of Chinese culture, which has survived to the present day, is often presented to Europeans as a "relic of the past", a "retarding" mechanism in the civilization of Celestial. The author also demonstrates the fallacy of such beliefs and the closeness of some of the oldest complexes of the Chinese mentality and the postmodern mentality. In parallel, the basic foundations of the European and Chinese consciousness / unconscious are traced: cosmos and emptiness; man and the world as substances and as networks; the ratio of the signifier and the signified, the idea of true reality as such in European and Chinese traditions.

-