Познание, мораль и политика = Cognition, morality and policy. Учебное пособие

genesis and development of its institutions. The power itself shapes everything, including civil society. In Russia, the state acts as a political institution which is both a form and a means of constituting other self-organization institutions within society. <...> Attractive ideas, social hypotheses, and political technologies which have come from the West do not work, or at least do not yield the results expected in Russia. <...> Russia needs a powerful state, because it politically and symbolically binds the poorly organized, atomized civil society. Not the fact that social integration, identification, and communication are implemented by the state, but the fact that other institutional ties within society are extremely weak is the problem»1 [6. P. 26, 27].

The author calls for a return to Hegel's understanding of civil society as a more adequate for Russia, as it is based not upon individualistic freedom but upon an integral corporate etatist world. In any case, in this context, we can speak of existence of various types of civil society we need to identify and study. Otherwise, science is replaced by ideology based upon a certain type of civil society which emerged under other socio-historical, economic, and cultural conditions yet is a priori accepted as truth. Most often, this «truth» is dogmatically accepted as the AngloSaxon experience imposed upon all other types of society, which inevitably becomes destructive if applied to them. As a result, it generates not democracy, but ochlocracy or a new, even more sophisticated form of totalitarianism.

Dimitri Simes, the American political scientist, notes the following thing regarding the rally activity in Russia during the election term in 2011–2012, «As to the demonstrations in Russia, I had a distinct feeling that they were sometimes made for foreign correspondents, and one of the reasons was the desire to be noticed by Washington»2 [8]. Political analysts’ opinions of the pro-

1Aksakov I.S. People, State, and Society. P. 26, 27.

2Sapozhnikova G. Why Does America Care about the Whole World? // Komsomolskaya Pravda, 2012, April 18. [Electronic version]. Access: http://www.kp.ru/daily/25870/2835183/

162

test movement in Bolotnaya Square differ. Some say that civil society has «woken up», while some regard the representatives of this movement only as «angry citizens» or even «big city madmen», or «urban plebs», consisting (though it may seem a paradox) mainly of the «intelligentsia» and «office monkeys» (office workers), small businessmen, and «parasitic» middle class, who produce nothing and earn their living only by fulfilling some intermediary functions. Could these layers mixed in a motley crowd which represented a variety of ideological currents, even the opposite ones, be regarded as civil society?

This is what M. Kantor writes about townspeople during the rally in Bolotnaya Square in Moscow in December 2011 in the book titled Red Light (Moscow: AST, 2013. § 10):

«Young birds from Usmanov’s nest – employees from the empire of Usmanov the billionaire, those freedom-loving journalists who are paid crazy salaries were marching. Prokhorov’s followers who joined the headquarters of the election campaign organized by Prokhorov the billionaire, who had once been given all the Russian nickel, were marching, too. They were followed by the ones fed by Abramovich the fat cat – characters from the art scene.

And then, the rest of the people were marching, like units of franc tireurs and small feudal lords who joined the army.

Freedom-loving mid-level managers were marching; anxious system administrators, marketing experts with sparkles in their eyes, and refrigerator distributors obsessed by their own dignity were marching, too. Columnists in charge of online publications, proud of their civic stance, kept marching; gallery owners and curators hired to make collections for well-off thieves kept marching; lawyers serving swindlers and believing that the salary they were paid was well-deserved whereas no corrupt official deserved one, kept marching along. Indignant restaurateurs and sommeliers who could no longer keep silent were marching. Progressive stage actors and democratic entertainers were walk-

163

ing along with a firm step of citizens demonstrating their legal consciousness».

An aged adviser of American presidents, Zbigniew Brzezinski still does not abandon his plans of the future collapse of Russia using what he calls «civil society». He has expressed his regret that «America was unable to take advantage of the collapse of the USSR», hoping that if it «is wise enough in its actions, in the next 20–30 years, the world will see dramatic changes in this part of the world, comparable to the 1990s, when the Soviet Union collapsed on Christmas Eve». His hopes are related to the new «civil society», the «oppositional international middle class», which started going out into the streets and squares of Russian cities in the year of the elections1 [9]. Thus, we can see how the concept of civil society (as well as that of «democracy») is completely distorted, essentially turning into its opposite – not a creative, but a destructive force threatening society and the state. In this form, it is well incorporated within the geo-political doctrine of a unipolar world.

The specificity of civil society in contemporary Russia is related to its relatively late genesis, low self-reliance, lack of initiative, low institutional development, etc. These circumstances just increase the role the state plays and its importance for the development of civil society in Russia. Nowadays, we have the necessary legal basis for its creation and development, and the supreme political authorities heading for the modernization of the country find it necessarily and are interested in developing real functioning democratic institutions. To do this, merely having some legislation and craving for power is not sufficient: it takes citizens’ real participation in the process. In fact, building civil society is the task citizens have to cope with, not government. If we have

1 Simonova I. Zbigniew Brzezinski for KP: America Did Not Manage to Take Advantage of the Collapse of the USSR // Komsomolskaya Pravda, 2012, February 14. [Electronic version]. Access: http://kp.ru/daily/25829/2805033/

164

no civil society, we have to start with ourselves. As the famous Russian liberals of the past used to say, no civil society can emerge before a citizen is brought up. Only a personality can be a real member of civil society and create it. A person not only endowed with legal rights and responsibilities, but also sufficiently self-aware, that is, having a conscious attitude towards himself, his place and role in society, and playing an active part in political life can be a true citizen. Both apolitical attitude and politicking must be avoided as they are equally detrimental to society. The biggest problem is the shortage of personalities. A personality is characterized by independence, responsibility, and morality. In this regard, we can say that the basic field of the struggle for democracy and civil society is the student and school audience.

LITERATURE

Aksakov I. S. People, State, and Society // Russian Ethos Is Our Banner. Moscow: Russian Civilization Institute, 2008. Pp. 67–100.

Kantor M. Red Light. Moscow: AST Publishing House, 2013. Mamardashvili M.K. On Civil Society // Experience of Physical Meta-

physics (Vilnius Lectures on Social Philosophy). Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya, 2008. pp. 213–247.

Nostalgic People (An Interview with A.S. Panarin) // Logic of Metahistorical Time. Moscow: Sotsialno-Politicheskaya Mysl Publishing House, 2004. pp. 9–19.

Panarin A.S. Rehabilitation of the Poor: Logic of Metahistorical Time // Logic of Metahistorical Time. Moscow, 2004. pp. 20–26.

Sapozhnikova G. Why Does America Care about the Whole World? // Komsomolskaya Pravda, 2012, April 18. [Electronic version]. Access: http://www.kp.ru/daily/25870/2835183/

Simonova I. Zbigniew Brzezinski for KP: America Did Not Manage to Take Advantage of the Collapse of the USSR // Komsomolskaya Pravda, 2012, February 14. [Electronic version]. Access: http://kp.ru/daily/25829/2805033/

165

COURSE SYLLABUS

Course title: HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Higher Education Field

Specialization – History of International relations Graduate’s Degree – Researcher, Teacher-researcher

ANNOTATION

This study in the sphere of history and philosophy of science offers an all-encompassing analysis of the specificity of philosophical knowledge in its difference from science, religion, superstitions, etc. The course focuses on the requirements to understand metaphysics as the core of philosophy and the base for morality. It reveals the specificity of science about nature and human studies. By the end of the course students will acquire or increase the following skills: know and understand the difference between science, philosophy and religion in their subject and methods in order to build adequate world-view; learn how to interpret philosophic texts, use the fundamental knowledge of philosophic methodology; acquire the skills necessary for understanding and analyzing philosophic texts, ideological, social and political doctrines; demonstrate their ability and readiness to a dialogue and communication.

166

The course is taught within the specialization «History of International relations». It provides theoretical grounds to further training in courses about science culture and philosophy. It also addresses to academics, undergraduate and graduate students in the humanities and everyone interested in understanding specificity of science, spiritual cognition, culture and humanistic policy.

COURSE OBJECTIVES

The main purpose of the course is to introduce post-graduate students to the specificity of philosophical knowledge in its difference from science, religion and mystics on the bases of history of philosophy, also on the example of Russian history of philosophy. The course focuses on the requirements to understand metaphysics as the core of philosophy and the base for morality. It reveals the specificity of science about nature and human studies.

Course prerequisites

The post-graduate students are expected to have previous knowledge in philosophy.

Questions

1.«Axial Age» as a break to the transcendent.

2.Destroying the myth and opening universalism.

3.«Axial age» as the time of building human being and future civilization.

4.The essential features creative activity and art.

5.Creativity as such. Art

6.Spiritual creativity as such. Self-cognition.

7.Creativity, art and morality.

8.Beauty debate: considering f. Dostoyevsky.

9.Evolution of f. Dostoyevsky's views on beauty.

10.N. Berdyaev on beauty.

167

11.Philosophical comprehension of culture. The role of philosophy in culture.

12.World-view, its role, definition, historical types, forms, kinds, content.

13.Cognition: its forms, capacity and hierarchy.

14.Truth, its understanding and forms

15.Philosophy and science: difference in subject and method.

16.Sciences about «nature» and «spirit»: difference in subject and method.

17.Concepts of society’s historical development

18.Morality and policy. How to solve the problem of violence in contemporary world?

19.History and philosophy of science as the subject of investigation.

20.The critic of revolution and liberal ideology Dostoevsky’s works.

21.Il'in's polemic with Lev Tolstoy’s doctrine of «nonresistance to the evil by force».

22.The pacifist non-resistance policy of Leo Tolstoy.

23.The humanistic non-violence policy («non-resistance to evil by violence» or «resist evil by force»).

24.Authors of Vechy (1909) and there critic of intelligentsia’s consciousness.

25.Russian idea in Eurasian and neo-Eurasian movement («Place-development», «Exit to the East»).

26.Features of classical Eurasianist movement.

27. Critic of the Eurasian movement (G. Florovsky, V. Zenkovsky, etc.). The ideas of neo-Eurasianim.

Questions for self checking

1.How do you think, is violence the substance of politics?

2.Why is Machiavelli a key figure to discuss the violence in politics? What is his place in the history of political philosophy?

168

3.What is Machiavelli’s thesis about the interrelation between means and aim in politics? How did hi justify it? What history has this thesis?

4.How Ruskolnikov justified his crime in Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and punishment?

5.On what ideas are socialist and revolutionary ideology based according to morality?

6.For what aim does Machiavelli agree to use violence? How does he justifies it?

7.What are good «good» and «bad» violence from Machiavelli’s point of view?

8.What relations are between morality and politics in Machiavelli’s works?

9.What is humanistic policy thesis? Do you agree with it?

10.Do the ends depend on the means?

11.From where did Gandhi take his ideas?

12.What does Gandhi’s Satyagraha mean?

13.What is Ahimsa in Indian philosophy?

14.What were Martin King’s principles of struggle?

15.What did M. King think about time and history?

16.How do you think why M. King thought, «It’s even worse to use moral means to achieve immoral ends»?

17.How did Kant explain relations between policy and mo-

rality?

18.Do you agree with Kant’s statements about sociohistorical life? In the contrary, what did Dostoevsky think about it?

19.What is the main law of humankind’s existence by Dostoevsky?

20.Explain, please, Dostoevsky’s symbol of the «single tear shed by a child».

21.Genesis of philosophy

22.Consciousness and unconscious in philosophy XIX–XX

cen.

23.Sciences about «nature» and «spirit»: differences in a

subject.

169

24.Sciences about «nature» and «spirit»: differences in a

method.

25.The phenomenon of freedom in «sciences about spirit».

26.Concept «freedom from» and «freedom for».

27.Legal and social measurement of concept of freedom.

28.Freedom as a spiritual phenomenon.

Course paper / Project Topics

1.Human being as a product of culture.

2.Definition of culture. Material and spiritual culture.

3.Forms of culture (elite, national and folk).

4.Culture and philosophy.

5.Forms of spiritual activity of the person and branches of spiritual culture, its hierarchy (philosophy, religion, art, morality, science).

6.World-view and mentality, world-contemplation, etc.; its definition. The necessity of world-view.

7.Personal and public world-view, their correlation.

8.Historical types of world-view (from mythological till modern and social).

9.Specificity of philosophical, religion, science, common and superstition world-view.

10.Features of philosophical world-view. The necessity having humanistic by content world-view.

11.The notion of cognition and its necessity.

12.Sensitive, rational, intellectual cognition and faith.

13.Differences between faith and superstitions.

14.Features of spiritual cognition. Aesthetic and moral cognition.

15.Concept of the truth. Variety of its forms and interpretations. Objective and spiritual truth.

16.The subject of philosophy and science, principal difference between them.

17.Method of philosophy and science and principal difference between them.

170

18.Features of scientific cognition.

19.Sensitive subject in science and theoretical in spiritual. Specificity of their cognition. Monolog and dialog, math and hermeneutics as methods in them.

20.Concepts of society’s historical development (Cyclic, Eschatological and Progressive).

21.Concepts of society’s historical development (Culturalhistorical types and post-modernist one).

22.The Newest projects of history elaborated by American political scholars (Samuel Huntington, Francis Fukuyama, Zbigniew Brzezinski).

23.The concept of «Axial Age» (K. Juspers).

24.Four variants of the interrelation between morality and

politics.

25.Machiavelli's view on the interrelation between morality and politics.

26.The position of Machiavellianism about the interrelation between morality and politics.

27.Principles of the humanistic policy.

28.What is the difference between humanistic and pacifist

policy.

29.The difference between Machiavelli and Machiavellian-

ism.

Main readings

1.Ballestrem K.G. Wieviel Pluralismmus verträgt der Mensch? // Polit. Meinung. Bonn, 2003. Jg. 48, № 409.

2.Best S., Kellner D. Postmodern theory: Critical interrogation. Basingstoke; L.:Macmillan, 1991.

3.Dialogue among Civilizations. Russian Philosophical Studies, IV. Washington D.C. CRVP, 2010.

4.Dialogue and Universalism. Journal of the International Society for Universal Dialogue. Vol. XXV. No. 1/2015. http://www.pdcnet.org/du

171