Kondrashov Pyotr
Based on a detailed analysis of Marx’s texts, the article for the first time systematically explicates such interrelated categories in his philosophy as man – the human/the non-human – the humane/the inhumane, and gives them formal definitions. The reconstruction of Marx’s ideas makes it possible to define man as a concrete historical, suffering, bodily-spiritual whole being, the mode of existence of which is praxis – a social consciously goal-setting transforming object-tool activity. In this process, man jointly with others transforms nature, creates its own artificial world of culture and forms an “ensemble” of social, interpersonal and existential relations, i.e. human society. This abstract definition of man allows us to formally define the human as everything that is inherent in a person as such and as everything that is done by a socialized person, both in terms of the activity itself and its results. Manifesting in specific forms, the human reveals itself in the socio-historical forms of the humane (truly human) and inhumane (inauthentic human existence). The article considers only two grounds for highlighting such forms: 1) subjective existential-emotional experience of one’s activity, one’s being-in-the-world, either as subject-subject pleasure from one’s free self-fulfillment in the world (the humane), or as alienation, aversion to one’s forced, unfree activity (the inhumane); 2) the objective role of activity, as a result of which the socio-ontological structures that create conditions for creative self-realization and are founded in subject-subject trust and intra-group solidarity are either productively reproduced or destroyed. It is emphasized that in specific social systems and situations, productive human activity can turn into its opposite and become inhuman practice, and, conversely, really inhuman forms of life organization in limited conditions can perform positive functions.
Keywords: Marx, generic essence of man, praxis, dialectic of objectification and deobjectification, subject-subject relationship,concrete historicity, the human/the non-human, the humane/the inhumane, mutual trust, solidarity, humanism
Murtazin Salawat
One of the problems of contemporary epistemology, the exploration of which can contribute to a fuller understanding of cognition as both an individual and collective process, is epistemic injustice. It is defined as the denial of epistemic trust to the Other, grounded in explicit and implicit identity biases existing in society. The author believes that the issue of epistemic injustice extends beyond the scope of investigating social injustice in general, serving as a serious obstacle to the achievement of epistemic values by an individual and society as a whole. The impact of this phenomenon on human cognitive activity is due to the actual totality of communicative knowledge or testimonial knowledge. Testimonial knowledge is obtained not through direct interaction with objects, but rather through the beliefs held by other subjects about these objects. The ideal of a fully self-sufficient epistemic agent, i.e. the ideal of epistemic autarky, seems to the author to be unrealistic and unattainable, since a person cannot fully cognize the world around him/her oreven himself/herself alone. The codependency of individuals in the cognitive process emerges as the main prerequisite not only for negative socio-political implications but also for the epistemic consequences of epistemic injustice. From the author’s point of view, epistemic injustice can be opposed not by unprejudicedness, but by such epistemic virtues as epistemic justice (Miranda Fricker) and proper epistemic trust (Benjamin McCraw). Context sensitivity is seen as an important element of these virtues, accompanied by the ability to revise and question certain criteria underlying trust in others as knowers and epistemic agents. The results of investigations related to these virtues can address practical problems and challenges within such fields of knowledge and practice as medicine and health care.
Keywords:trust, cognition, testimony, communicative knowledge, autarky, autonomy, epistemic egoism, epistemic injustice
Arsentyeva Irina
The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted not only public health, economics, and politics, but also has had profound psychological effects, which in turn affect all spheres of life of individual states and the international community as a whole. To explore this impact, the article uses a model of epidemic psychology developed by British medical sociologist Philip Strong at the turn of the 1990s. Based on the history of epidemics, he identified patterns of changes in society during outbreaks of previously unknown infectious diseases. In his opinion, at least three types of psycho-social epidemics are spreading in parallel with a disease, developing according to their own laws, and affecting both individuals and society as a whole. The first of these is an epidemic of fear, the second is an epidemic of explanation and moralization and the third isan epidemic of action or proposed action.They not only present a threat to public order but also can powerfully influence the size, timing, and shape of the social and political response in many other areas affected by the epidemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed many vulnerabilities in people’s response to a sudden outbreak of a new disease, which poses a serious threat to security at both the national and global levels. Understanding the causes of such a response and identifying patterns of development of epidemics/pandemics play an important role in the fight against them. In this regard, the purpose of the article is to verify the relevance of Strong’s model for the analysis of the COVID-19 pandemic. This purpose dictatesthe structure of the study, which outlines the British scientist’s key concepts and applies his model to the situation with COVID-19 in general and in the field of politics. Since COVID-19 is the first pandemic in the era of social media, special attention is paid to the information epidemic (infodemic). The final part of the article highlights some of the effects of epidemic psychology in the context of humanity’s predicted entry into an “era of pandemics”. Promising directions for further research on the issue are outlined.
Keywords: epidemic psychology, model, epidemic of fear, epidemic of explanation and moralization, epidemic of action, panic, moral entrepreneurs, stigmatization, COVID-19 pandemic
Skorobogatskiy Vyacheslav
For more than thirty years, since the perestroika of the second half of the 1980s, attempts have been made in our country to solve a twofold task – to create an effective economy of a modern (market) type and to build a democratic, social, and legal state. As serious gaps between the goals set and the results achieved are revealed, nostalgia for the Soviet past, the myth of the Soviet as a lost paradise, is spreading more and more widely in society. The very transition from the past to the “new” present turned out to be chaotic and uncontrollable, with a palpable tendency to roll back and search for workarounds. The gaps in the development strategy are largely due to the state of Russian social science, the discrepancy between its empirical base and theoretical and methodological potential, and the historical tasks facing society and the state. Social science, which arose in the 19th century, fully assimilated the requirements that had developed in the course of the formation of classical science of the “science” type. The paradigm of science, formed in the second half of the 19th century based on Charles Darwin’s theory of biological evolution, includes an antiteleological attitude, the essence of which is the substantiation of the natural, stochastic nature of the historical process and the indirect recognition of anthropogenesis as a derivative, secondary aspect of the formation of the Big Society, crowned by the emergence of the state. Modern social science, remaining within the framework of the evolutionary paradigm and the basic provisions of the materialist understanding of history, is aloof from the real tasks facing society. As a way out of this state, the article discusses the transition to a new paradigm of scientific knowledge, which is formed on the basis of systemic, institutional, socio-cultural approaches, cybernetics, synergetics, etc. This transition, accompanied by the reworking and expansion of the empirical research base, updating the theoretical and methodological potential of social science and deconstructing the ideological myth about the USSR, can create the necessary conditions for a theoretically correct formulation of the issue on the historical fate of theSoviet Union and its scientific solution.
Keywords: spirit of science, human subjectivity, paradigm of social science, revolution, evolution, antiteleological attitude, time in history, human liberation from the power of the past, reflex of freedom, ethical beginning of history
Zykov Dmitrii
Employing both dialectical and phenomenological approaches, the article delves into the origins of the phenomenon of law and traces the evolution of its external forms and internal (semantic) content. It distinguishes four historical stages in the evolution of law: the genesis of this phenomenon, the emergence of ancient laws, the positivization of law in the 18th – early 19th centuries, and the transformation of modern law into an objective management mechanism of society. It is argued that the dialectical laws (principles) governing the movement of matter serve as the methods of evolution of the phenomenon of law since the historical stages of its development unfolded in accordance with them. Each stage transcends into the next through a dialectical leap in development, becoming the highest form of movement of the “body” of law (corpus juris) in relation to the previous one. Law originates from a less organized form, manifesting as justice – a characteristic of human behavior and the foundational regulator underlying sociogenesis. The empirical birth of the phenomenon of law occurs with the advent of ancient written laws. This process involves the participation of official authorities who extract the concept of the legal from social relations and appropriate it for self-constitution and implementation. At the next development stage, law becomes positive, turning into a system of special interpretative knowledge – a conditional (hypothetical) reality. Equity is transformed into the concept of social justice and the concept of compliance with the law. Law is identified with legislation, excluding all other possible forms of manifestation and acquiring the sign of a necessary connection with the state as its creator. The final stage reflects the current state of law, when its content as a regulator expands through integration with information and communication technologies and the anthroposphere. Law becomes a conduit of the hypothetical sphere of reason and an objective management mechanism of society. The author concludes, that the existence of law is paradoxical: while being a conditional (hypothetical) reality, law is always at least a minimum of justice, making its application to reality as a regulator not a mere coincidence.
Keywords: essence of law, existence (location) of law, justice, genesis of law, stages of law development, ways of law evolution, dialectical laws of movement of matter, ontology of law
Martyanova Elizaveta
The increasing number of joint performances, as opposed to individual efforts, leads to the need for a focused approach of legislators, the scientific community, and law enforcement officers to developing effective legal regulation for the relations of co-actors. However, the methodological tools for studying the designated institute are used inconsistently, lacking consideration for the inherent nature of the object under study. The work aims to identify the prerequisites, directions, and limits of applying cultural, sociological, and economic analyses of law to the study of the institute of joint performance. It is proved that the culturological analysis is geared towards revealing the naturally evolved practice within a particular sphere of life, derived from the cultural codes. The article reviews key areas of cultural analysis of law. It is revealed that the study of artistic texts, cinematographic works, judicial acts, texts of agreements, as well as customs and traditions used by co-actors in the joint creation of performance results, is an effective tool for selecting the appropriate normative structure to frame these relationships. The use of tools from cultural analysis is positioned as a necessary stage in the study of the institute of joint performance due to its original genetic affiliation to cultural phenomena. As part of the sociological analysis of institute of joint performance, it is proposed to use such techniques as secondary data analysis, questionnaires, expert surveys, content analysis, and SWOT analysis. The need to study institute of joint performance through the application of tools of economic analysis of law, including the theory of incentives, the theory of performance optimization, and normative economic analysis is argued. It is concluded that the use of cultural, sociological, and economic analyses of law will enable the identification of limits and boundaries of state-legal intervention in the field of art. The use of this triad of methods should precede the application of special legal methods.
Keywords: cultural analysis of law, sociological analysis of law, economic analysis of law, joint performance, performing artists