Festschrift in honor of V.N. Jha, b. 1946, Indologist; comprises contributed papers on various aspects of Vedic literature and philosophy.

В форме увлекательных бесед показаны не только высоты и бездны европейской философии, но и значительные достижения русской философской школы, уходящей своими корнями в православное мировосприятие. Для всех, кто хочет научиться серьезно мыслить.

'This book is a masterpiece of theoretical thought. It anticipates the actual achievements of much of what we now call sociolinguistics.

Contributed research papers chiefly on various aspects of Indic philosophy, Vedic literature, etc.

Издание предназначено для специалистов в области традиционной культуры, учителей, студентов гуманитарных специальностей.

Western studies tend to view Byzantine philosophy either as a minor offshoot of western European thought, or a handy storehouse for documents and ideas until they are needed. A scholar of philosophy (Aristotle U. of Thessaloniki), Tatakis (1896-1996) finds the view limiting, pointing out that during the Roman period, few Greeks learned Latin but Romans were not considered educated without a founding in Greek, and that Byzantine Christianity has its own trajectory unconcerned with how it deviates from western orthodoxy.

On verbal epistemology of the neo-Nyaya school in Indic philosophy; includes Sanskrit text, Apūrvavāda from Nyāyasiddhāntadīpa of Śaśadhara.

В книге представлены примеры современных, главным образом, отечественных исследований творчества русского философа С. Л. Франка (1877-1950).

Kak ėto nachinalosʹ -- Sozrevshie plody -- Otkrovenii︠a︡ fizicheskoĭ nauki -- Sumerki estestvoznanii︠a︡ -- Sokrovishcha drevneĭ mudrosti -- Kontury miroustroĭstva -- Soprotivli︠a︡i︠u︡shcheesi︠a︡ Nichto -- Prilozhenii︠a︡.

At present, as the paper states, social philosophy and philosophy of history – are generally considered to be independent domains. This is evidenced by the fact that each of the above‐named domains has to be discussed in a separate congress section, the practice which was common for previous congresses as well. It is argued in the paper, that social philosophy and philosophy of history are the two most important aspects of the integral philosophical study of society. It is impossible to (...) say which aspect is dominating. The report contains a number of arguments to support this point of view. Possible reasons for such a “division of labor” in European philosophical thought and its consequences are exposed. The question arises: why are social philosophers incline to discuss a correlation between social philosophy and theoretical sociology and don’t like to discuss a correlation between social philosophy and philosophy of history? And why are philosophers of history so reluctant to discuss ontological issues of society? (shrink)