Vol 28, No 4 (2024): EXPERIMENTAL PHILOSOPHY

In our time, the so-called experimental philosophy is emerging. Examples of it are the experimental study of cognition, empirical studies of the work of scientists and the development of scientific knowledge (STS), and some other fields. At the same time, philosophical statements claim to be universally valid. Logical positivists held that metaphysical statements are unverifiable and therefore meaningless. According to Kant, knowledge begins with experience, but its results is not derived from experience. Experiential conclusions could be different under other conditions; universally valid conclusions remain true under all conditions. This study attempts to answer the question of how experience enters into philosophical reasoning. First of all, the question arises: how is experience to be understood? Experience can be understood narrowly and broadly. In the latter case, it also includes the experience of thinking (since thinking could be different). However, one cannot deny the possibility of cognizing extra-experiential, including normative, truths. How we distinguish them from truths of fact is still an open question. The experience of our own thinking is given in reflection, while the experience of thinking of different people is studied by cognitive science. The role of experience in philosophical thinking is examined through examples: philosophy of music, neurophenomenology, material of psychopathology, and existential philosophy. In all these areas of philosophy, metaphysical claims are made in one way or another on the basis of experiential data. In conclusion, I formulate my own hypothesis of the role of experience in philosophy: metaphysical judgments follow only from other metaphysical judgments, experience playing the role of a filter. This hypothesis is open for discussion.

The research proposes an analytical description of dialectical thinking according to the structural-dialectical approach, based on philosophical foundations and a conceptual psychological apparatus that allows us to assess the development of this form of thinking in children and adults. The grounds for identifying dialectics as a special form of thinking were defined in philosophy (Aristotle, Pseudo-Dionysius, N. Kuzansky, L.-M. Deschamps, F.V.Y. Schelling, G.W.F. Hegel, etc.). Dialectical thinking is presented as a system of particular mental actions designed to solve problems of a specific type - containing work with relations of opposition, both within content and structural. The sensitive period for the beginning of the formation of dialectical thinking is the preschool period. The sensitive period for the beginning of the formation of dialectical thinking is the preschool period. In this study, the task was set to identify the connections between parents’ ideas about the degree of organization and structure of everyday life, which we consider as a form of a normative situation and a space for the development of children’s dialectical thinking in a longitudinal study. New data confirm the hypothesis put forward and are consistent with previously discovered facts of heterochronicity in the development of dialectical thinking actions in 5-9 year old children.

The study assesses J. Greene’s experimental criticism of deontological normative theory, offers an alternative interpretation of experimental data, which does not lead to Greene’s conclusions about the inconsistency of deontology, and analyzes some argumentative strategies and methodological presuppositions of the experimental approach to philosophical problems. An example of Greene’s criticism of deontological ethics from experimental position allows one to make a number of conclusions. Firstly, the experimental material provides a subject for interpretation, but the interpretations themselves are philosophical abductive theories claiming to be the best explanation of the data. It is difficult to expect that such claims will remain without objections and without competitors based on different extra-theoretical standards. This makes experimental philosophy an arena of particularly intense debate, in which new results are born. Secondly, in experimental philosophy there remains a basic tension between the natural scientific tendency to consider the most economical explanation as the best and to accept a reduction of “pseudo-problems” and a more inclusive philosophical attitude to “perennial questions”, the recognition of the importance of which serves as a necessary criterion for the consistency of a theory. Thirdly, the case of Greene’s criticism of deontology allows one to identify some strategies of argumentation characteristic of the natural scientific approach to experimental philosophy: “motte-and-bailey”, the understanding of the norm as an empirical regularity, and a commitment to explanations through origin. It would be too hasty to assess these strategies as fallacies or tricks; it would be more correct to call them features of types of rationality that create a special dynamic of search in experimental philosophy and distinguish the scientific-experimental party from the more philosophical party. The value of the experimental approach is undeniable; it enriches philosophy not only with new data, but also with new arguments.

The study is devoted to the problem of the relationship between the methods of two contemporary philosophical trends: experimental and computer philosophy. Both of these trends are distinguished by the fact that they depart from the principles of “armchair” philosophy, although they do not break with it completely, turn to empirical data, etc. The key principles of experimental philosophy are considered, which allow integrating the methodological structure of experimental philosophical research with approaches in the field of computer philosophy. It is also demonstrated that with the help of computer philosophy, such classical philosophical methods as conceptual analysis and thought experiments can be transformed. This, among other things, allows integrating them into experimental philosophical research. Four groups of computer technologies are distinguished that can be used in conjunction with philosophical methods. These are data analysis technologies, computer modeling (multi-agent systems, etc.), generative technologies, computer games. In the context of philosophical research, the results obtained with the help of these technological tools receive a semantic interpretation. This paper proposes the problematic of a potential experimental philosophical study devoted to the problem of confirmation/proof in the field of evidence-based medicine and medical activity. Options are offered for how the methods of computational philosophy could be used to conduct such a study.

The postmodern doctrine of the 21st century, as well as the development of technology have changed the structure and form of the text which has increasingly acquired features of polymodality. The research aims to the study the visual metaphor, its philosophical and cognitive foundations in the political discourse exemplified in three linguacultures: American, British and Chilean. The research provides a definitional analysis of the concept of ‘visual metaphor’ and offers an overview of foreign research in the field. Cognitive aspects of visual metaphor are studied on the basis of conceptual and methodological approaches of the authors of cognitive metaphor G. Lakoff and M. Johnson, the theory of dual coding A. Paivio, philosophical reflections are based on the works of E. Cassirer, F. Nietzsche, U. Eco, R. Barth, Yu.M. Lotman. For the purpose of the present research methodology of analysis of visual metaphor with subsequent parameters were developed, which includes research methods of cognitive linguistics, semiotics and cultural studies. The presented methodology allows to analyze polymodal texts of political discourse, identify types of cognitive metaphors, analyze the structure of the sign, and reveal internal mechanisms of public opinion manipulation in the context of political discourse. The practical material of the study is represented by 30 political cartoons which were selected using the continuous sampling method, dedicated to political leaders of the USA (D. Trump), Great Britain (B. Johnson), Chile (S. Piñera) and above all are monomodal, i.e. contain only a visual code. To secure the research outcomes one more criterion to the cartoons was applied - they were supposed to depict political leaders in the metaphoric mode. The selected material was parameterized according to the developed methodology for analyzing the visual metaphor with each of the criteria described in detail. The study concludes with a comparative analysis of the visual metaphor in the political discourse of three linguacultures - American, British and Chilean - common features are highlighted, and differences are analyzed, the basis of which lie in the cultural and historical perspective, ethnic traditions.

The study is devoted to identifying and analyzing the influence of multilingualism of Vasily Sesemann (1884-1963) on his work. The prerequisites for the formation of natural and acquired multilingualism of V.E. Sesemann are considered. The question is raised about the peculiarities of creativity and language of the philosopher’s works, possible professional advantages due to multilingualism. The research provides an overview of the controversy regarding the national, cultural and philosophical identity of V. Sesemann in the context of professional multilingualism (active academic use of Russian, German and Lithuanian languages). The paper examines the characteristic features of bilinguals and multilinguals, presents a brief overview of the historical dynamics of assessing their cognitive capabilities and the specifics of learning. It is shown that the modern umbrella term metalinguistic awareness helps to identify and describe the specific features inherent in the works of V. Sesemann, his “special grasping of language”, recognizable style, precision of wording and attention to the accuracy of terminology, expressiveness and figurativeness of language, compositional perfection of works. The study reveals that there are a number of additional factors that enhance V. Sesemann’s special attitude to language, including: musical auditory and performing experience, teaching, and work as a translator. In addition, the study demonstrates V. Sesemann’s clear awareness of the opportunities provided by knowledge of several languages, which is supported by the philosopher’s statements and fragments from his children’s memoirs. The work provides examples illustrating the specificity of his style of presentation. The analysis not only shows the uniqueness of V. Sesemann’s phenomenon in the history of philosophy, but also opens up opportunities for new research approaches to his work and demonstrates the research potential of his legacy

Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi is famous for being a valuable informant on secret sects, notable scholars of his time, as well as a transmitter of the unique logical-linguistic dispute that was held between his grammar teacher, Abu Sa’id al-Sirafi, and the Christian logician Abu Bishr Matta (in Baghdad in 932). It was reflected by the author in the аeight’s “Night” (part) of his Magnum Opus the “Book of Enjoyment and Conviviality” (984). The plot of this famous scientific event revolves around the assumption that those who master language and grammar can efficiently deal with logical issues. Therefore, from Sirafi’s point of view, logic is only a “destructive trick” of “arrogant people” and a “blatant disrespect for the mother tongue.” Matta insisted that only through this science can one correctly distinguish between false and factual statements. The dialogue gives a brilliant idea of the traditionalists’ view of the ancient Greek heritage, particularly the concepts of “logos” and “syllogism”. According to the language criteria, Sirafi also reformulates the traditional view of the first al-Falasifa , al-Kindi . The research also examines, with the help of formal logic, whether this dialogue could be transmitted as we read it today.

The research examines the problem of different ways of perceiving the ancient philosophical tradition in classical Arab Muslim and medieval European philosophy. It is noted that the difference in the ways of perception is determined, in particular, by the peculiarities of the concept of “knowledge” in Islam and Christianity. In the interaction between Arab Muslim and Christian cultures, stereotypes emerge in mutual perceptions, surprisingly leading to paradoxes like the Christianization and Europeanization of Eastern Peripatetic teachings. Their works were translated into Latin, and their names were "Latinized". The most famous names of philosophers: Ibn Sina (980-1037) is better known in Europe as Avicenna and Ibn Rushd (1126-1198) as Averroes. These thinkers belonged to the school of Eastern Peripateticism. Eastern Peripateticism or Eastern Aristotelianism are terms that denote one of the directions of Arab-Muslim philosophy of the Middle Ages. As is known, it is the representatives of Eastern Peripateticism that are called falasifa (الفلاسفة), and their teachings falsafah (فلسفة). In medieval Arab-Muslim culture, the term "falsafa" referred to ancient philosophy and the teachings of thinkers like al-Farabi (870-950), Ibn Sina, and Ibn Rushd, who were influenced by ancient philosophical models. Unlike European medieval philosophy, a unique aspect of falsafa was that it was neither regarded as nor aspired to be a servant of religion. It is with the name of Ibn Rushd that one of the directions of development of medieval European philosophy is associated - “Latin Averroism”, which as a philosophical term is applied to the direction in scholasticism of the XIII-th century, based on Averroes’ interpretation of Aristotle and underlies the doctrine of “dual truth”, which considered the independence of truths of reason from truths of revelation, and, ultimately, philosophy from religion. The main representatives of this movement were Siger of Brabant (c. 1240-1284) and Boethius of Dacia (c. 1240-1284). The essence of the paradox is that medieval Europe knew the teachings of Averroes but did not know the teachings of Ibn Rushd or perceived them in its own way. At the same time, the Arab East, as the birthplace of Ibn Rushd’s teachings, was not familiar with either the so-called Averroism or the concept of “dual truth”. In this context, the paradox can be explained as a situation that exists in historical reality, but does not have a strictly logical explanation, that is, at first glance, the authorship of Averroes as the creator of the doctrine of “dual truth” seems true, but in fact is an unreliable statement. This is also due to the fact that the concepts and value attitudes of one culture, transferred to explain the phenomena of another culture, form a stereotypical perception of the phenomena of this other culture. At the same time, within the framework of the interaction of cultures, the spread of “Latin Averroism” is one of the examples of the integration of the Arab-Muslim philosophical tradition into medieval European culture.

The research attempts to conduct a comparative analysis of conceptual representations of societal security, its functions and practices in Scandinavian countries after the Cold War, when traditional security strategies focusing on geopolitics, specific war-related threats, and territorial defense are overlaid with new understandings of “threats” and the necessary range of state actions to address them. Strategies of ‘resilience’, risk management’, ‘crisis’ or ‘emergency management’ become important. In the Nordic countries, the need for societal security is coming to the fore, linked to the development of a social welfare society. The similarities in the theory and practice of societal security allow us to speak about the possible existence of own, Scandinavian system of societal/complex security. Our investigation shows that the Scandinavian way of ensuring security was formed on the basis of the “Scandinavian model”, founded on socialization and integration, and the basis of the new socio-philosophical understanding of security was readiness for broad actions: from military invasion to environmental threats, man-made disasters and terrorist attacks. However, a generally accepted interpretation of societal security among the Scandinavian countries has not yet developed; each country has its own peculiarities. However, differences are as common as similarities. Although there are undoubtedly special, Scandinavian values and ways to protect them. Identification of these peculiarities is the purpose of the presented study, which attempts to answer the question whether it is possible to speak about the existence of a special, “Scandinavian way” of conceptualizing and ensuring security. For this purpose, it is necessary to conduct a comparative analysis of security concepts, their formulation, and, most importantly, practical actions to ensure societal security in the states of the Scandinavian Peninsula on the example of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Finland.

The research presents a comparative analysis of John McDowell’s and Gilles Deleuze’s conceptions of transcendental empiricism. The very name of this conception bears in itself a kind of paradox, since Kant (the father of transcendental philosophy) occasionally used the term “transcendental” as “non-empirical”. The research presents an attempt to explain why these philosophers apply to themselves such self-description and how they understand it. To achieve this goal, we present an analysis of transcendental empiricism of each of the heroes of the study. An analysis of Deleuze’s view shows that he considers transcendental empiricism as a study of the validity of our experience. The main question of Deleuze’s transcendental philosophy is Kant’s quid juris? We also show that Deleuze’s transcendental empiricism is a self-conscious attempt to develop post-Kantian and phenomenological traditions in modern philosophy that stands in sharp opposition to any form of Hegelianism. McDowell, contrary to that, is more sympathetic to Hegel. His transcendental empiricism has another roots from that of Deleuze. It is motivated by Sellar’s critique of “the Myth of the Given” and McDowell’s attack on the “third dogma of empiricism”. These projects show the inconsistency of traditional empiricism. However, according to McDowell, they do not show the impossibility of non-traditional, transcendental empiricism that is concerned with the question of the very possibility of empirical worldview. The comparative analysis of McDowell’s and Deleuze’s projects show, despite the difference of philosophical tradition and style, close affinity between some moves of these philosophers. However, it also reveals some important differences. While McDowell is seeking to show how the concepts can be actualized in intuitions, the main concern of Deleuze is to show how intuition can develop itself into conceptual form