Виходячи з запитаності в сучасній культурі метафізичного осмислення природи людини, укоріненого в філософському спадку Канта, автор зосереджує увагу на експлікації антропологічних інтенцій кантівських «Критик», акцентуючи амбівалентність позиції мислителя на проблемі автентичної форми метафізичної антропології.

The article entitled "Multiculturalism is the main philosophical concept of social and political development in modern society" is devoted to the analysis of cultural and political problems occurring in modern societies in the context of globalization from a socio-philosophical aspect. The necessity of approaching the issue from the point of view of the current needs of the time and era, respect for other cultural identities, non-actualization of acts of radicalism, terrorism, extremism, religious fundamentalism, and racism, which may cause (...) imbalance in the system of ethnic-political relations of polyethnic societies in the era of globalization, and taking complex measures calculated for a safe future in relation to ethnic-political subjects is reflected in the article. In a philosophical sense, the term multiculturalism is a generalized expression of the cultures to which social subjects belong, having a broad meaning and incorporating different values.. It is known that culture and spirituality are historical philosophical systems, and depending on the rules of time and the form of the social structure at each stage of historical development, the culture and spirituality change and renew. Multiculturalism is a form of tolerance in which representatives of different national cultures coexist in conditions of equal rights and self-affirmation within a single country. The philosophical-theoretical basis of the multiculturalism paradigm is precisely the mutual understanding of parallel cultures in global society, joint activity, and even their equal dialogue. The article analyzes the concept of multiculturalism from a philosophical perspective and primarily explains it as a synthesis of communitarianism and liberalism. It was especially noted that multiculturalism, as a humanist ideology, reflects the equality promoted by communitarianism and respect for individuality and other cultures and religions, as liberals say. The article draws attention to the transformation of the multiculturalism paradigm into the main philosophical and political concept of modern societies against the background of globalization and the formation of the political doctrine of many developed countries, including the Republic of Azerbaijan, in the context of state policy. (shrink)

The religious and philosophical doctrine of L. Silenko is the canonical basis of the doctrine of the religious organization of the Sons and Daughters of Ukraine of the Native Ukrainian National Faith in the Western Diaspora and religious organizations that emerged on the basis of RUNVira in independent Ukraine. This doctrine became final in the early 1980's and is in this form the most famous in modern Ukraine. RUNVira is the most studied denomination of the Ukrainian denominational religious movement (...) in the diaspora. (shrink)

A remarkable phenomenon in our present-day culture has been the broad interest shown in the history of Russian thought, which is continually, and sometimes even from unexpected quarters, showing itself to be of topical interest. Recently, and particularly in connection with the publication of the works of N. F. Fedorov, there has been an exchange of opinions in the pages of various journals with regard to the essence of his philosophical views, revealing not merely conflicting, but in a number (...) of cases mutually exclusive assessments of those views. (shrink)

The understanding of this spiritual movement is an important key to the understanding of the contemporary Japanese state of mind, and The Buddhist Sects of ...

The doctrine of the Eucharist has been one of the more fruitful locales of philosophical reflection within Christian theology. The central philosophical question has been, ‘what is the state of affairs such that it is apt to say of a piece of bread, “This is the body of Christ”?’ In this article, I offer a delineation of various families of answers to this question as they have been proffered in the history of the church. These families are distinguished (...) by how they view the presence of the body of Christ as well as the continued presence of the bread and wine after consecration. I then provide a specific examination of some recent attempts to explicate these views. A number of the recent work has focused on the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, but I also survey consubstantiation, transignification, and a recent revival of impanation as potential means for describing the metaphysical realities of the Eucharist. (shrink)

_Philosophical Theology and Christian Doctrine_ surveys and comments on recent work by philosophers of religion in the analytic tradition on the doctrines of the Christian creed. Topics covered include creation, Incarnation, Trinity, salvation and eschatology, and the ultimate future of creation. Comprehensive survey of core Christian doctrines.

The common law of England and the United States and the civil law of continental Europe have a similar doctrinal structure, a structure not found in the English cases or Roman legal texts from which they supposedly descend. In this original and unorthodox study of common law and legal philosophy the author throws light on the historical origins of this confusion and in doing so attempts to find answers to many of the philosophical puzzles which contract lawyers face today. (...) Reassessing the impact of modern philosophy upon contract law, the author concludes that modern philosophy having failed to provide a new basis for a coherent doctrinal system in the law of contract, the only hope for devising such a coherent system lies in rediscovering the neglected philosophy of Aristotle and Aquinas. (shrink)

In his general philosophical remarks, scattered across different oeuvres, Mach subscribed to a number of doctrines. First, the thesis of the economy of science: The primary, perhaps the only legitimate goal of scientific theories is to achieve the economy of thought. Instead of recording many facts, science codifies them under the heading of laws. Instead of attending to individual diverse sensations, science postulates the existence of bodies. Then we have evolutionism: Human activities must ultimately be understood in terms (...) of Darwin’s theory. A man is a biological product of evolutionary development. But only human activities: history of knowledge, ideas, thoughts is only intelligible by the lights of evolutionary theory. Finally, phenomenalism: Sensations are denizens of the world, whereas bodies are symbols constructed in thought, chiefly to serve the purposes of economy. Are these views jointly consistent? I argue that the role of naturalism, prominent in the endorsement of the evolutionary theory, creates an unresolved tension among those views. Phenomenalism in particular is deeply revisionary. It appears to be a remnant of empiricist metaphysics casting doubt on pretty much every area of scientific discourse. The adoption of full-fledged philosophical naturalism should be able to resolve the tension without ruling out the possibility of a methodological critique of scientific theories. (shrink)

In the philosophical perspective of the Roman Stoic philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca virtus was a central theme, and historically he is an important conveyor of the Platonic-Stoic doctrine of virtue---which posits four primary virtues, namely, prudentia, fortitudo, temperantia, and iustitia. ;Despite recent research in Senecan scholarship and contemporary interest in the doctrine of virtue, there has been no study which unites these two philosophically important areas of investigation. The purpose of the study is to investigate and analyze, from the (...) standpoint of current philosophical scholarship, Seneca's doctrine of virtue---with particular reference to the four "cardinal" virtues. The philosopher's position concerning each of the four is examined with regard to how he perceived: the nature of each, their relationship, and their unity. The inquiry is limited to a discussion of Seneca's philosophical writings, viz.: the 124 Epistulae Morales , the ten Dialogi, the De Beneficiis, the De Clementia, and the Naturales Quaestiones. Specifically, this dissertation argues that Seneca's philosophical works illuminate the traditional Stoic doctrine of the unity of the four major virtues in which wisdom is the underlying connection which bonds all primary virtues into the rare unity of perfect virtue . The dissertation explains that there exists in Seneca's thought a logical progression of the four primary virtues from wisdom, to courage, to moderation, and ultimately to justice, and it systematically presents the connection and reciprocal relationships which exist between each of the four mutually entailing virtues. An identification and analysis of Seneca's philosophic contributions to the subject of virtue is conducted by setting his views against the Platonic-Aristotelian and the Hellenistic, particularly Stoic, traditions which he inherited. Occasional reference is made to ways in which Seneca's doctrine of virtue compares with, and, in some cases, influences later philosophers. ;The first chapter examines the metaphysical foundations of Senecan virtue. The subsequent chapters consider Seneca's views concerning the virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice, respectively. The sixth chapter inquires into the teleological dimensions of Seneca's doctrine of virtue. The dissertation closes with recapitulations, conclusions, and implications for further research. (shrink)

The main purpose of Christian social teaching is to form a person's Christian outlook, to provide the Christian with answers to the questions of the present and specific recommendations regarding the model of behavior in different situations in life. In its turn, social doctrine expresses a confessional perspective on the problems of modern life faced by believers. This view is formulated in special documents of denominations, the totality of which constitutes the "social doctrine of the Church".

Kant’s critique/doctrine distinction tracks the difference between a canon for the understanding’s proper use and an organon for its dialectical misuse. The latter reflects the dogmatic use of reason to attain a doctrine of knowledge with no antecedent critique. In the 1790s, Fichte collapses Kant’s distinction and redefines dogmatism. He argues that deriving a canon is essentially dialectical and thus yields an organon: critical idealism is properly a doctrine of science or Wissenschaftslehre. Criticism is furthermore said to refute dogmatism, by (...) which Fichte means Spinozism. Schelling repudiates Fichte’s position in his Philosophical Letters by reviving Kant’s distinction. First, ‘critique’ for Schelling names a canon that is valid for all systems—including Spinozism—and thus favours none—not even the Wissenschaftslehre. Second, Schelling coins ‘dogmaticism’ to refer to what Kant calls ‘dogmatism’: reason’s uncritical claim to doctrine. Hence, he says all systems—even Fichte’s—are susceptible to the ‘enthusiasm’ of mistaking themselves for doctrines or ‘objects of knowledge’, instead of subjectively valid ‘objects of freedom’. I reconstruct Schelling’s argument for reviving Kant’s distinction, while noting two consequences for German idealism. First, if criticism favours no system, a system’s origin cannot be an act of knowledge, e.g., intellectual intuition, but only an act of endorsement. Second, if dogmaticism entails enthusiasm, a system’s goal cannot be absolute knowledge, but only infinite striving. Hence, by retrieving Schelling’s notion of dogmaticism, we can both gain a better understanding of the Letters and register the impact of a core Kantian distinction on the German idealist project. (shrink)

INTRODUCTION 0.1 Introduction Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835) was a Prussian aristocrat, who served the state as minister of education, diplomat, ...

Philosophers and ethicists debate this controversial moral principle illustrating its application to current moral dilemmas such as war, suicide, nuclear power, affirmative action, and morphine use for terminal cancer patients.

This contribution discusses Leibniz’s views on key Christian doctrines which were surrounded, in the early modern period, by particularly lively debates. The first section delves into his defence of the Trinity and the Incarnation against the charge of contradiction, and his exploration of metaphysical models capacious enough to accommodate these mysteries. The second section focuses on the resurrection and the Eucharist with special regard to their connections with Leibniz’s metaphysics of bodies. The third section investigates Leibniz’s position on predestination, (...) grace, salvation, and damnation. It comes to the conclusion that salvation, for Leibniz, does not ultimately depend on believing a set of true doctrines, but on a practical attitude: the love of God above all things. Leibniz’s theology is thus fundamentally a theology of love which is ultimately practical, and tries to be both universalist and Christian. (shrink)

Kant’s critique/doctrine distinction tracks the difference between a canon for the understanding’s proper use and an organon for its dialectical misuse. The latter reflects the dogmatic use of reason to attain a doctrine of knowledge with no antecedent critique. In the 1790s, Fichte collapses Kant’s distinction and redefines dogmatism. He argues that deriving a canon is essentially dialectical and thus yields an organon: critical idealism is properly a doctrine of science or Wissenschaftslehre. Criticism is furthermore said to refute dogmatism, by (...) which Fichte means Spinozism. Schelling repudiates Fichte’s position in his Philosophical Letters by reviving Kant’s distinction. First, ‘critique’ for Schelling names a canon that is valid for all systems—including Spinozism—and thus favours none—not even the Wissenschaftslehre. Second, Schelling coins ‘dogmaticism’ to refer to what Kant calls ‘dogmatism’: reason’s uncritical claim to doctrine. Hence, he says all systems—even Fichte’s—are susceptible to the ‘enthusiasm’ of mistaking themselves for doctrines or ‘objects of knowledge’, instead of subjectively valid ‘objects of freedom’. I reconstruct Schelling’s argument for reviving Kant’s distinction, while noting two consequences for German idealism. First, if criticism favours no system, a system’s origin cannot be an act of knowledge, e.g., intellectual intuition, but only an act of endorsement. Second, if dogmaticism entails enthusiasm, a system’s goal cannot be absolute knowledge, but only infinite striving. Hence, by retrieving Schelling’s notion of dogmaticism, we can both gain a better understanding of the Letters and register the impact of a core Kantian distinction on the German idealist project. (shrink)

He served as editor of The Theosophical Society's Theosophical Review, and later formed The Quest Society and edited its journal, The Quest Review.

Contributing Authors Include Beatrice Zedler, Lottie H. Kendzierski, Francis Wade, And John O. Riedl.

In philosophy of religion the term of Immanence is mostly applied to GOD in contrast to the divine Transcendence. This relation, as we will see here, it is not far from the truth since one cannot be without the other, however they are not to be put in contrast, but in conjunction. The one-sided insistence on the immanence of God, to the exclusion of His transcendence, leads to Pantheism, just as the one-sided insistence upon His transcendence, to the exclusion of (...) His immanence, leads to Deism. These two can be separated, but the consequences are great for human knowledge and society; it is the two taken together that result in, and are necessary to Theism. But from the least complicated idea that even the name of God is a manifestation of His immanence contrasting with Deus absconditus, whose existence and name cannot be known or thought, theology and religion in general need to regard immanence of God as crucial for the acts of worship. What are the philosophical background for Christian theology to imply the immanence characteristic for God’s existence related to His creation? – This is the main question the present work tries to answer as an overview. (shrink)

This paper traces the philosophical sources of one of the central Christian doctrines concerning deity-the doctrine of the Trinity - from the classical Greek period through to Justin Martyr (114¬ 165 C.E.). A key figure in this continuous line of thought is the Greek Middle Platonic philosopher Numenius of Apamea (fl. ca 150 C.EJ, who followed the Platonic tradition of Xenocrates of Chalcedon (d. 314 B.C.E.).

Leibniz is not commonly numbered amongst canonical writers on toleration. One obvious reason is that, unlike Locke, he wrote no treatise specifically devoted to that doctrine. Another is the enormous amount of energy which he famously devoted to ecclesiastical reunification. Promoting the reunification of Christian churches is an objective quite different from promoting the toleration of different religious faiths – so different, in fact, that they are sometimes even construed as mutually exclusive. Ecclesiastical reunification aims to find agreement at least (...) on the most important doctrines. Religious toleration involves accepting and respecting disagreement even on the most important doctrines. If one regards these two projects as alternative rather than complementary strategies for dealing with religious diversity, Leibniz might more readily be characterised as an ecumenist rather than a tolerationist. Such appears to be the conclusion, at any rate, implicit in the balance of critical literature on these topics: whereas a steady stream of studies has discussed Leibniz’s project of ecclesiastical reunification, only a meager trickle has been devoted to his views on toleration; and some of these studies go so far as to conclude that Leibniz had no doctrine of toleration at all. This paper will attempt to show, on the contrary, that a robust, many-layered, and unusually inclusive doctrine of toleration can be gleaned from Leibniz’s writings. This doctrine operated at least at three different levels: philosophical, theological, and pragmatic. As this implies, the doctrine of religious toleration, rather than being in collision with Leibniz’s core project of ecclesiastical reunification, was an essential element of that very project: it should be seen, in other words, not as a competing goal, but as a necessary first step toward ecclesiastical reunification. Yet at the same time it will also emerge that Leibniz’s doctrine of toleration was no mere function of this intra-Christian project of reunification: rather it was a still more fundamental principle which extended beyond the ecumenical project as well. It had the resources for accepting and respecting irreducible religious diversity and disagreement on points of importance not only between Christian communities, but also between Christians and non-Christians, including, in principle, even the atheists. These points will emerge from a discussion of statements on the philosophical, theological, and pragmatic justifications of religious toleration scattered throughout Leibniz’s sprawling corpus of writings. (shrink)