In his speech Academician Fedorov expressed the opinion that the political and ideological meaning of the problem of interaction between man and nature is fundamental for our conference.

Of all the world thinkers on whom the author of The Philosophy of the Common Task [Filosofiia obshchego dela] reflected, the one to whom he devoted the most attention, thought, and passion was perhaps a contemporary of his who, though fifteen years his junior, had already thrown some "impossible" works in the face of a fascinated, flabbergasted, and shocked public and had lived for almost ten years outside the world of culture and history, in a state of complete insanity. I (...) speak, of course, of Friedrich Nietzsche. He burst into Russia as a deafening European intellectual novelty, which intoxicated and swept away quite a few young people and even some experienced wise heads with the audacity of his "transvaluation of all values," his prophetic eruptions of new ideas and life principles, his exciting style of free philosophizing, and, finally, his existential tragedy. Fedorov could not but have been sensitive to and, I would say, personally affected by this phenomenon-Nietzsche and Nietzscheanism and the fashion for them. (shrink)

t. 1. Rasshiri︠a︡i︠u︡shchai︠a︡si︠a︡ vselennai︠a︡ absoli︠u︡ta -- t. 2. Kosmo-antropo-sot︠s︡io-prirodogenez cheloveka -- t. 3. Antropologicheskai︠a︡ istoriosofii︠a︡.

Problems of the relationship between man and nature are becoming a steadily increasing portion of the questions facing modern civilization. Moreover, their character is changing significantly. Only two or three decades ago, the most acute problems were an unending list of "shortages" of one type or another, while the environment in which men lived was regarded primarily as a set of resources without which things could not be produced. Today it is the threat of excessive human influences on nature that (...) has taken center stage. The biosphere is beginning to be perceived on the level of its capacity to assimilate what has been produced, and the growing question is how best to combine the scientific-technological creations of man with the objective processes occurring in nature. (shrink)

The aesthetic and spiritual problems of a heritage of F. Dostoevsky in connection with the perception of his works in Russian culture of beginning of XXth century are considered in the article. N. Berdjaev’s estimation of value of Dostoevsky’s works for Russian Renaissance, when was active discussions the problems of the humanism and further development of the literature and culture, is given in the work. The author has paid attention to Dostoevsky’s activity in search of new opportunities of the literature (...) for the direct image of a human ideal. The remarkable examples of such works were found by the writer in art of the European Renaissance. The opinion that humanism of Renaissance was formed by special type of the self-made man of art and spirit on the basis of the Renaissance myth of person is supported in the article. The author established a connection with humanistic ideas and aesthetic searches of Dostoevsky, Renaissance and Russian Renaissance of beginning of XXth century through the interpretation of a category ‘the Renaissance myth of man‘. In Russian culture Dostoevsky can be estimated as the type of the artist corresponding late European Renaissance Typological aspects of a human myth in F. Dostoevsky’s prose can explain fixed attention to his works in beginning of XXth century. Constant and deep interest for a person and spiritual life ensured the high degree and important features of influence of his works on formation of views of Russian Renaissance on art, art creativity and understanding of the world and the person in terms of tragical humanism. As a result, Dostoevsky’s creative heritage with his humanistic myth of the Renaissance type became the important part of art and Russian spiritual culture of beginning of XXth century. (shrink)

The article deals with the human, aesthetic and spiritual problems of Russian symbolism in connection with development of a creative heritage of F. Dostoevsky. In the article N. Berdjaev’s point of view on development of humanism of the Renaissance type in Russia of the late 19th and early 20th centuries is given and a problem of the person in F. Dostoevsky’s prose is appointed. The author discusses a question on a degree and character of influence of problems of the person (...) and features of a genre of the novel of Dostoevsky’s type on the formation of Russian symbolism. A. Volynsky, leading Russian symbolists, Viach. Ivanov, A. Belyj, D. Merezhkovsky have arranged mysticism, subjectivity and tragic element concerning to art and proclaimed art as the aesthetic and religious act. In Dostoevsky’s art Russian symbolists recognized their own important theme: the understanding of the world and the person in terms of a tragical category and revealing the dramatic position of the person facing unspirital and meaningless practice of modern society as the main thing in the literature. The author is arrived at a conclusion that Russian symbolists have connected Dostoevsky’s art with the newest tendencies in Russian art and culture of beginning of 20th century and have created the original tragical and symbolic concept of Dostoevsky’s creative works. (shrink)

Our aim is to point out the role of scientific research in contemporary technological developments. Interactions between science and technology in the context of application-driven research projects of the 20th century are discussed. We define science and technology as two separate domains, and provide elementary models for their interaction by the means of applied and engineering sciences. These elementary models constitute linear and cascade models of science-technology interaction. We apply these elementary models for the purpose of further methodological analysis of (...) Soviet nuclear warfare project. The special role of organization and management in research and development activities is being emphasized. The new science-technology interaction model is devised in the course of nuclear project. This new interaction model is referred as non-linear or spiral. The model is seen as more collaborative and risk aware than linear and cascade interaction models present in twentieth century. The conclusion is the new model was of great impact to modern social forms in which research is carried out in the present. (shrink)

The comparative analysis of the W. Golding’s novels demonstrates that the identification of God is the central problem in the works of the famous English writer. Golding did not consider Divinity only in connection with Christian orthodoxy, rational view of the world. In his novels, God gets different embodiments according to the wide cultural tradition. The group of heroes is trying to determine Divinity by force of the religious ritual in such fables as Lord of the Flies, The Inheritors, Rites (...) of Passage, Double Tongue, The Scorpion God. The writer was convinced that the base of any religion is violence and triumph of mass consciousness, it can lead to tyranny, totalitarian system. The heroes of novels Pincher Martin, Darkness Visible opposed God to the ego. To Cris and Sophy God became ‘the black lighting‘, the death, the damnation. By the example of their fates, Golding revealed the cult of self-will and individual freedom as the main problem of the contemporary society. Paths to God of Golding’s saints are different and profoundly individual, they are far away of any standards. They believe in spiritual foundation of the objective reality, they can reach the theophany and spread their consciousness to the compassion of other people. However, saints are exclusion, that is why the author’s viewpoint is conveyed by the spiritual searches of Jocelin, Talbolt, Arieka. Each of them had come up the hard way from proud self-assurance to doubting and searching the truth. Golding supposed that the man cannot touch the ground of Divinity, but his aspiration for God is the root of human and morality. The author saw God as spiritual foundation of the objective reality that is becoming acquainted due to intuition, individual spiritual search and creativity. (shrink)

Nikolaj Fëdorov insists that the proper end of the philosophical project must be the repudiation of history in the creation of a new being not subject to death. This project appears to be an extension of the kind of philosophical madness one might associate with the Platonic striving for synoptic vision of the whole. Federov develops this notion of philosophy, not in dialogue with Plato, however, as much as with the Hegelian notion of the end of human striving in absolute (...) knowledge, the final unity of will and reason, which Fëdorov criticizes. The exceptional radicality of Fëdorov’s philosophical project as a project of divinization, as well as its flaws, are most clearly manifest in the Russian context with reference to two other crucial projects of divinization deeply influenced by Hegel: that of Vladimir Solov’ëv and Alexandre Kojève. (shrink)

The article is devoted to the consideration of the general principles of understanding of human development by N. F. Fedorov and F. Nietzsche. The article considers Fedorov’s philosophy of the common task to be a partial continuation of the general contours of Nietzsche's thought about the will to power. Nietzsche’s position is viewed through the prism of the concept of the will to power as a vital force overcoming the nihilistic devaluation of values. The concept of Fedorov is considered, first (...) of all, from the point of view of his understanding of human self-improvement as the elevation of the power of human will over the blind natural elements. In this context, the question of the legitimacy of understanding Fedorov as an advocate of scientific and technological progress is considered. In the article, along with the parallels between Nietzsche and Fedorov, another idea of kinship of their philosophical optics through the understanding of philosophy as ethics is also carried out. (shrink)

The name Nikolai Fedorovich Fedorov has entered the ranks of the most outstanding thinkers who are worthy representatives of Russian philosophy. However, we shall not forget that this has become obvious only in recent years in the homeland of this unique philosopher. The scandal created by the publication in 1982 of Fedorov's works in the series Filosofskoe nasledie [Philosophical Heritage] is still remembered. On instructions from above, publication of the works was followed by dismissals, investigations, and allegations about the resurrection, (...) under conditions of "developed socialism," of the works of a "religious-conservative utopian"; there was also an anti-Fedorov campaign in the press. True, enthusiastic investigators—philosophers, literary figures, and artists—did not cease their efforts either before or after this ill-starred scandal to study and publish the works of this "strange" thinker. But it should be said—and this is pointed out in the book under review here—that under conditions of unfree development of philosophical thought, Fedorov's ideas were sometimes distorted to better accord with official attitudes, to make them "acceptable" for publication under the circumstances of that time, as well as for the sake of adapting them for the propaganda of various unofficial ideas, such as "native soil" ideas. Both Fedorov's person and his works have been surrounded by legend. Paradoxical though it may seem, foreign students of the works of the Russian philosopher have had more favorable conditions to study his legacy and have written many articles and books about him. Among them, the dissertation by Michael Hagemeister, Nikolai Fedorov. Studies of His Life, Works, and Influence, published as a book in the series Marburg Studies in the History and Culture of Eastern Europe in 1989, occupies a worthy place. (shrink)