Archive

Abstract. The article discusses the key ideas of professor K.N. Lyubutin (1935–2018) – one of the founders of the Faculty of Philosophy at the Ural University (1965), the Chair of History of Philosophy at this University (1969), and the founder, inspirer and leader of the Ural School of Marxist Studies. The author focused (1) on Konstantin Lyubutin’s ideas, which at time were innovative in the framework of Soviet Marxism-Leninism (explication of K. Marx’s philosophical and anthropological ideas; separation of K. Marx’s philosophical ideas and F. Engels’s philosophical searches the paradigms of classical Marxism; the innovative solution to the problem of subject and object), and the post-Soviet history of Russian philosophy (Russian versions of Marxism); (2) on the ideas, which were not presented in a systematic and complete form in printed works, but rather were expressed fragmentary in the context of researching other problems, in numerous lecture courses, and in interviews and personal conversations (revealing the specifics, structure and subject matter of K. Marx's philosophy; the system of Marxist philosophy). All K.N. Lyubutin’s ideas are relevant today, especially in the conditions of renaissance of Marx at the beginning of the XXI century.
Keywords: K.N. Lyubutin; Marxism; Karl Marx’s philosophy; dialectic of subject and  object; philosophy of praxis; Karl Marx’s philosophical anthropology; Russian versions of Marxism; structure of Marxist philosophy.

Abstract. The object of investigation is the notorious problem of “dialectical-logic”,and its relevance to constructing relatively autonomous cognitive robots. The subjectmatter is formal axiological aspect of the mentioned object. The method is constructing and studying discrete mathematical models. Scientific novelty: for the first time such a formulation of the problem of “dialectical-logic” and such a psychologically unexpected solution of it are submitted, which make up a foundation for scientific investigation of possibility of modeling “dialectical-logic” of thinking by artificial intellectual systems. According to the conception developed in this paper, the meaning of the metaphorical expression “dialectical-logic” is formal axiology of thinking. Therefore, to model “dialectical-logic” by relatively autonomous cognitive robots, a discrete mathematical representation of the subject-matter of investigation is constructed, namely; a logically consistent system of equations of two-valued algebra of formal axiology which system models formal-axiological aspect of adequate thinking about objective contradictions of material world. Theoretic and practical significance of the obtained new scientific result is creating necessary prerequisites for constructing relatively autonomous cognizing robots.
Keywords: relatively-autonomous-cognitive-robot; discrete-mathematical-model-ofdialectics-of-cognition; “dialectical-logic”; two-valued-algebra-of-formal-axiology.

Abstract. The article focuses on the lack of transparent criteria for evaluating the work of morality and knowledge professionals in Russia today. There are many contradictory  opinions on this issue. Morality simultaneously has a monetary price, and exists in the realm that is far above any economy and market. This enables morality professionals to believe that society is in an eternal and unpaid debt to them. The state recognizes the “pricelessness” of their activities, but at the same time, actually puts morality professionals on the low level in the emerging hierarchy of classes in our rent-estate society. The author substantiates that morality and knowledge professionals are interested in developing clear and understandable criteria for assessing the usefulness of the new and old classes, and monetary value of their work. This implies raising demands on restructuring economic and political spheres, so that they would include moral values produced and cultivated by professionals. The author considers that the first step of professionals in finding political identity adequate to their position is to reject the demagogic “priceless” rhetoric encouraged by the authorities.
Keywords: morality; labor; commodification; market; rent-estate society.

Abstract. The development of energy, agriculture and industry, the growth of consumption of natural resources inevitably increases the risks of environmental offenses, and lead to increase the negative impact on the environment. In accordance with the Strategy of Environmental Safety of the Russian Federation until 2025 (Decree of the President of the Russian Federation “On the Strategy of Environmental Safety of the Russian Federation for the Period up to 2025” 2017), minimization of damage caused to the environment, elimination of negative consequences of anthropogenic factors on the environment, as well as the rehabilitation of territories and water areas contaminated as a result of economic and other activities, prevention of environmental harm are named as the main directions of solving the main tasks in the field of environmental safety. The current system of accountability for environmental damage in our country could not be called effective. Improvement of legislation on compensation for environmental harm should start with the norms of material (environmental) law. According to N. Robinson and L. Kurukulasuriya, “To be an effective means of environmental protection, liability regimes should cover not only traditionally accepted forms of compensation, but the damage caused to the environment. The main task of developing special regimes of environmental responsibility is to help people understand the consequences of the negative impact on the environment – the public good, which is the basis of the system of life support of people and all living things. However, many countries have not introduced special liability regimes for environmental harm, relying on traditional civil liability standards applied in the environmental context”. As noted by leading foreign researchers in the field of environmental law, one of the main problems in solving the issue of compensation for environmental harm in the framework of classical tort law is the need to belong to an environmental good, which is public in nature, to any person. Another equally important problem that characterizes liability for environmental damage largely as public law is the methods of assessing the damage caused. Environmental damage may not be quantifiable from an economic point of view, for example, in the case of loss of fauna and flora that have no market value, and in the case of damage to ecosystems or landscapes, economic value may not be assessed using traditional approaches to damage assessment.
Keywords: compensation of harm to the environment; environmental damage; environmental courts; environmental remediation; environmental court expertise.

Abstract. The formal separation of the national legal order determined, on the one hand, by the will of the national society, and on the other hand, by international law, did not explain the substantive non-identity of the legal orders – after all, they could be considered as purely utilitarian, functional branches of the law one for all people (irrespective of its origin and character – divine, natural, or rational). The question arose about the substantial individuality (identity) of each national legal order – its peculiar elements,
and the features of its general (common in more than one legal order) elements. The idea of the peculiarity of national law was based primarily on the organic theory of national law, which emphasized the essential role of self-development in the evolution of the people. During the period studied in the article, scientists put forward the thesis of the  non-self-sufficiency of the influence of unchanged climatic conditions, as well as needs and economies of peoples that are largely derived from them acting as the framework of the possible development of a people whose culture and identity recognizes these limitations and opposes them. Social life was viewed as free and self-determined, and the law – as its integral element within the framework of the cultural tradition, and manifestation of its awareness and understanding. The fundamental basis for understanding peculiarities of the law by scholars of that time were: the historicity of the peculiar elements in national law, which is determined by social development in specific conditions, thus entirely or mostly denying their substantiality; the impossibility, at least in relation to their own societies and states, of the existence of an absolutely autochthonous law in the modern world, the lack of self-sufficiency of the peculiar, as well as, in principle, the openness of legal systems to interaction; the dependence of the expansion or contraction of the sphere of peculiar elements in national law of the will of society and other factors, the possibility of alternative options for the development of this sphere; the impossibility of depriving national law of its peculiar elements without ceasing its existence, and their necessity.
Keywords: comparative jurisprudence; comparative law; national legal system; national legal order; peculiarity in law; organic theory of national law.

Abstract. In the legal doctrine, there is no consensus on the legal nature and the name of the legal prescriptions that do not establish rights, duties and prohibitions. Some legal scholars call them specialized, and refer to the legal norms, other legal scholars call hem
atypical (non-standard) legal prescriptions, and differentiate them from the rules of law. The article also analyzes the possibility of classifying the entire complex of the studied phenomena as system-determining legal prescriptions. Depending on the function, they can be divided into system-degerming and system-ensuring (system-adaptive). This division is critically commented in the article. The concept of “legal prescription” is broader in scope than the “legal norm”, as it includes the rules of law and the rules on the content, operation, and application of the rules of law (not establishing rights, duties and prohibitions). The rules on the content, operation and application of the law deserve the name “system-determining legal regulations” because they define the limits of the possible content of the law or determine the choice of law when they compete, allow or block the use of certain rules of law. If a “working” rule of law is hypothetically taken out from legislation, its absence will not affect the content or the possibility of applying other rules of law, and can be, for example, filled in by law analogy. In turn, the removal of a legal prescription (that is not a rule of law) from the legislation can «break» the entire branch, subsector or institution of legislation, because either the law will not be «filtered» by content, or unsolvable conflict of laws will arise, or there will be gaps in relation to certain types of legal relationships. System-determining legal prescriptions are divided into those that consist of rules on the content of legal norms (the subject of regulation; principles of law; legal presumptions, fictions, axioms; legal definitions; provisions on the composition of formal sources; provisions on the applicability of the law analogy and the analogy of legislation; the provisions on the subsidiary application of norms of the multisectoral legislation), and those that contain rules on the operation and application of the law (rules on the effect of prescriptions in time, in space, in personal, on retroactivity, conflict-of-laws and operational regulations).
Keywords: specialized legal norms; atypical legal prescriptions; system-determining legal prescription; subject of regulation of the law; principle of law; legal calculations; secondary definitions; generic definitions; presumptions; fictions.