No 4 (2016)

The article contains the translation from Sanskrit to Russian of the fragment (sutras 1, 2, 4, 9-13) of the short logic work “Nyāyapraveśaka-śāstram” (“Treatise bringing in the rules [of reasoning]”) and some comments. Text was written in VI CE in the school of the founder of Buddhist logic Dignāga. The fragment is dedicated to 14 errors of the reasons of inference, (unproven, uncertain and contradictory), and contains restrictions for the rule of three characteristics for hetu (trairūpya). Full Russian translation of the text isn’t published yet.

The author investigates M. K. Gandhi’s anthropological views and his ideas on individual development. Indian thinker distinguishes Spiritual and brute principles in human nature, sees matter of self-improvement in understanding by person his Divine essence and considers spiritual salvation as a final goal of this process.

This paper considers Dostoyevsky’s understanding of human freedom. It is shown that Dostoevsky reduced the freedom of Human being to a freedom of will and thought that “the predefiniteness of the world events” is the main obstacles in its implementation. The work promoted a logical analysis of the difficulties associated with the reduction of human freedom to the “freedom of will” and to the “freedom of choice”. Has been demonstrated the reception of Dostoevsky’s ideas by F. Kafka in “Process” also.

In the article the author considers the future of the academic teaching of philosophy in the contemporary world of globalization. The theme is much more difficult as it seems to be. It can be considered from the different point of views. For example, we can engage in a critical study of cultural context of our tradition of the academic teaching of philosophy (and in this case our analyze will a particular part of more general consideration of European tradition of the university education) or we can propose the ways alternative for our tradition. Any way we will have to take our traditions to the tribunal of our present life in order to answer the question whether they are still relevant and whether we can still live from them today. But it is also useful to consider us ourselves and our present life from another side, and namely from our traditions, and allow them to be that tribunal, which makes a decision about what we are today.

The axis of the publication is the self-identity discourse unfolding in close connection with the socio-political situation in Latin America in the first decades of the 20th century. The characteristics and specificity of the peripheral forms of modernization processes are highlighted. The author takes “Mexican essence” philosophy development as an example to discuss cognitive strategies of national reflection associated with different ways of transition to modernization experience.

Throughout XX century and the beginning of XXI century, China shows its desire to move away from the classical tradition and the transition to new “modern” values in various areas of life. But does this really mean a departure from the classical tradition? In the context of multiculturalism and the transition from archaic dialogue countries it seems possible today only by a comprehensive concessions and privileges from the member countries of this dialogue. China as a Great power with more than three thousand years of history requires special attention and special treatment. It is about finding such an approach, and the characteristics of intercultural dialogue between China and the world says in her speech A. Chen, with an emphasis on the postulates of the ethical and philosophical teachings of Confucianism. The main question the researchers is whether such traditional areas as Confucianism promote China to other countries “openness”? In an effort to get an answer to her question, A. Chen refers in her speech to the analysis of contemporary political, economic and spiritual life of China.