7 research outputs found
“Bones in the sandbox”: museum as “world picture” vs museum as “lifeworld”
Full text linkThis article deals with the issues of museum communication and interpretation of museum exhibits in a philosophical and cultural context. As an example, it considers two different ways of presenting palaeontological material – specifically, the skeleton of a southern mammoth – revealing differences in how the semantic content is interpreted. The first method – the traditional approach of assembling the skeleton – gives a “world picture” of a certain era, as it appears to a palaeontologist. The second approach presents the skeleton in a “sandbox”, representing how it was found during excavations, such that viewers deal not with the interpreted “ready-made” material, but with the contemporary experienced reality – the “life-world”, the “raw” source material. This allows visitors to realize their own creative potential and to recreate the nature of the Pleistocene epoch in their imagination. Thus, through the mutual correlation of the roles exhibition’s author and of the visitor as an interpreter, the semantic field of museum communication expands. In Heidegger’s conception, a “ hides the world rather than explains it, while the “life world” represents it as it is
Anti-Rawls or the Russian Way of Eurasian Integration
Full text linkThis article examines Eurasian integration in the context of the ideas which accompany it and make possible the implementation of its practices, especially law-making and law-enforcement practices. The central theme of the article is the competition among values and social technologies claiming to play an integrating role. The starting point of this analysis is the theory of justice by John Rawls presented in the form of many interpretations thereof by legal theorists, as well as experts in the field of political and moral philosophy. It is examined based on assessments made from the standpoint of the politico-legal and socio-historical development of the West, as well as on attempts to look at this theoretical concept from a different cultural and civilizational point of view. Detailed consideration is given to the ideas and images of justice formed within the philosophical symbiosis of Confucianism and Legalism and providing a value-based legal identity of the Chinese civilization. The article shows that the ideas and values of the Rawlsian theory of justice are rooted in the political and legal history of European civilization and the dependence thereof on the philosophical and theoretical language of European enlighteners and even on the Indo-European national language family. As the main alternative to the neoliberal theory of justice, the article studies the philosophical and theoretical and politico-legal heritage of the Eurasianists. The theory of Eurasian law advanced by representatives of this movement is analyzed in depth. This type of legal relations, based on obligations, is considered as a special type of law capable of uniting heterogeneous entities without requiring their full unification or depriving them of their civilizational and value-based peculiarities. The authors analyze the real experience of economic and politico-legal integration, both within the framework of international organizations and at the level of inter-governmental [inter-country] cooperation. An assessment is made of the justifiability of the claims of Eurasianist philosophy regarding its ability to successfully provide integration processes in this part of the world.This article examines Eurasian integration in the context of the ideas which accompany it and make possible the implementation of its practices, especially law-making and law-enforcement practices. The central theme of the article is the competition among values and social technologies claiming to play an integrating role. The starting point of this analysis is the theory of justice by John Rawls presented in the form of many interpretations thereof by legal theorists, as well as experts in the field of political and moral philosophy. It is examined based on assessments made from the standpoint of the politico-legal and socio-historical development of the West, as well as on attempts to look at this theoretical concept from a different cultural and civilizational point of view. Detailed consideration is given to the ideas and images of justice formed within the philosophical symbiosis of Confucianism and Legalism and providing a value-based legal identity of the Chinese civilization. The article shows that the ideas and values of the Rawlsian theory of justice are rooted in the political and legal history of European civilization and the dependence thereof on the philosophical and theoretical language of European enlighteners and even on the Indo-European national language family. As the main alternative to the neoliberal theory of justice, the article studies the philosophical and theoretical and politico-legal heritage of the Eurasianists. The theory of Eurasian law advanced by representatives of this movement is analyzed in depth. This type of legal relations, based on obligations, is considered as a special type of law capable of uniting heterogeneous entities without requiring their full unification or depriving them of their civilizational and value-based peculiarities. The authors analyze the real experience of economic and politico-legal integration, both within the framework of international organizations and at the level of inter-governmental [inter-country] cooperation. An assessment is made of the justifiability of the claims of Eurasianist philosophy regarding its ability to successfully provide integration processes in this part of the world
TWO PORTRAITS ON THE BACKGROUND OF THE REVOLUTION: PITIRIM SOROKIN AND MIKHAIL REISNER
Full text linkThe article is a comparative analysis of the intellectual biographies and the creative heritage of two thinkers, Pitirim Sorokin and Mikhail Reisner, who left a notable mark on 20th century legal, sociological and philosophical thought. The choice of these personalities is largely due to their diametrically opposed reaction to the 1917 revolutionary events in Russia, which decided their destinies and had a direct impact on the nature and content of their theoretical research. The article examines the facts of the thinkers’ pre-revolutionary biographies which preceded the paradox of the choice made by each of them: Reisner’s gilded childhood and youth did not prevent him from supporting the revolution, in spite of its horrors, while the poverty and adversities suffered by Sorokin from an early age turned him into a tough and uncompromising opponent of the revolutionary chaos and the Bolshevik reforms. The article pays special attention to the theoretical difference between the thinkers’ positions as well as the philosophical ideas and moral beliefs embodied in their legal and sociological conceptions. The role of the schools of thought in the formation and development of their theoretical views, mindset and ideological attitudes is traced. The strong connection between the scientific traditions and academic fields is shown and the magnitude of the influence of Reisner’s and Sorokin’s teachers and spiritual guides (Jellinek, Kovalevsky and others) is defined. Arguments are provided for the theses on the essential nature of influence of ontological assumptions and methodological preferences in the scientific and theoretical formulations of Sorokin, who supported of the primacy of social reality, and Reisner, who adhered to the primacy of unwritten law. A common thread running through the entire analysis is the theme of subsequent reflection over the country’s fate after, and the truth of, the revolutionary changes by these two very dissimilar authors, who became contemporaries and participants in one of the most significant events of the 20th century, an event changed the course of global history. Yet, both authors, whose contribution to the development of the sciences on society and law is beyond any doubt, give substantial grounds for comparative analysis of their ideas, assessments and views. So different in their reaction to what was happening, in their young years they were expecting the revolution with equal ardency, they were looking forward to the destruction of the old world and the creation of a new, more rational and, of course, fairer society in its place. Both of them were influenced by the ideas of European enlightenment during their education, both were full of hopes for Russia’s progressive development. Both Pitirim Sorokin and Mikhail Reisner would later give up most of the illusions of their youth, each of them would overcome positivism in his own way and each of them would make his choice in favor of certain ideals while having – certainly – to sacrifice the other ones. What would affect the choice of these two outstanding scientists, what would predetermine their intellectual and value-related preferences? One might try to find the answer to this question both in the circumstances of their destinies and in the peculiarities of their research biography
Which Way is The Russian Double-headed Eagle Looking?
Full text linkThe article examines the historical reasons for the unique relationship between the state and the law in Russia, which has a system-forming impact on all aspects of life in modern Russia. The authors analyze the duality of the Russian political and legal world – ‘Athens’ vs ‘Jerusalem’ – ‘East vs West’ – ‘legal state vs state of obligation’ – and reveal the philosophical and ethical maxims through which it became possible to talk about Russia’s peculiar historical path and the modern image of Russia. In the latter case, the authors focus particular attention on the phenomenon of ‘sobornost’ [‘the spiritual community of many people living in the same space’] establishing that, in the philosophy of the Slavophiles, this category played the role of both a religious and a national proto-symbol, which can be understood as a source of spiritual unity of the people, connecting them from the outset during the sacrament of communal prayer and then being transferred to everyday life, organizing and directing all social practices of the Orthodox society in a special way. It is pointed out that the philosophical reflection on Russia’s peculiar historical path has found a certain continuation in the idea of the ‘Slavic legal family’ proposed by Professor V.N. Sinyukov. The authors do not overlook the problems of legal nihilism as an attribute of the Russian political and legal practice. The instinctive distrust of complexity and inclination towards the utmost simplicity in solving social problems is named as one of the reasons for the legal nihilism of the Russian people. In the final section, the authors address the issue of borrowing the political and legal experience from foreign sources. The ‘pole points’ of the analysis are the Eastern experience of the Chinese state and the Western experience of French law. Expansion of the Anglo-American law is defined by the authors as the ‘other kind of milk’ for the ‘Russian coffee’ – which generally corresponds to the global trend in this sphere
From Inquiry to Theory: There – And Back Again
No full textAbstractQuestion runs as follows: is an inquiry a preliminary step to a theory, or does a theory (evidently, found by chance, or by luck) give rise to an inquiry? This is a logical circle, or maybe an ellipsis. Or maybe this circle/ellipsis is a hermeneutical one. In this case it is hard to distinguish between a source of scientific thought and its aim, or the fruits of it. Be it a logical or hermeneutical circle of the current of human thought and activity, in both cases it is an important problem for science and for a philosophy of science reflecting it. I argue that, among all sciences, social sciences and humanities, making use of interpretation rather than of demonstration, have better chance to have the circle/ellipsis torn in order to solve the problem of passing from theory/inquiry to practice. It is decades-long positivistic tradition to think of a scientific theory as of a physical theory considered as an etalon for all scientific knowledge. Even epistemology, social it itself, tends to be constructed as a physical theory. The same could be said about philosophy of science. Recently, however, in Russian philosophy of science there appeared a philosophy of post-theoretical thinking. Its author is V.I. Przhilenskiy. It can well be treated as an inquiry following and negating a modern theory of knowledge (i.e., epistemology and analytical philosophy as its branch) – which in its turn had its origin in general gnoseology as an inquiry. Following and negating general gnoseology as something non-theoretical in the positivistic view, theory of knowledge is now being replaced in philosophy of social sciences by an inquiry in a form of post-theoretical thinking. This, indeed, is not merely a circle, but a spiral – a Hegelian emblem of development
