The mechanisms of cooperation between fundamental knowledge and technoscience (that is called a contemporary form of science and technology interaction) are covered in the paper. It is highlighted that the essential peculiarity of technoscience is that its’ objects are not substantive reality in Cartesian dualistic worldview, but so called “human dimension” objects socially and practically constructed. NBIC technologies can serve as an example of the contemporary technoscience. The paper attempts to reveal and analyze the philosophical basis of technoscience: ontological, gnoseological and axiological.

Multifaceted and rich theoretical heritage of N.G. Debolsky (1842-1918) - Russian philosopher, psychologist, educator - not yet sufficiently known, poorly understood and has not been adequately assessed. This article presents one of the recent attempts to fill this gap. It examines the evolution of Debolsky´s views in 1870 years on the methodological and philosophical problems of psychology. In this context, considers its evaluation activities of such psychologists and educators as: K.D. Kavelin, K.D. Ushinsky, W. Wundt and G. Spencer. Particular attention is paid to Debolsky´s discussion such methodological issues of psychology as questions about its scientific, its relationship with the philosophy (metaphysics) and natural science, its method, the object, structure, objectives and practical application. In addition, special emphasis Debolsky´s understanding the soul and its description of its main features. The article concludes his contribution to the psychology, the development its methodology and its history.

Science and Technology Studies (STS) is one of the world’s leading trends in philosophical and interdisciplinary research that reveals the obvious parallels with the Russian tradition of the philosophy of science and the science of science. Analysis of this subject area shows that STS faces today at least two challenges: to avoid theoretical stagnation and to make a practical contribution to the relationship between science and society. The first one is principally solvable through interdisciplinary collaboration between philosophy and other disciplines studying science. The second challenge needs to maintain a balance between the cultural autonomy of scientific research, on the one hand, and the actual existence of science as a social institution, on the other. Both of these tasks are already inherently imply an emphasis on philosophical point of view and some decrease of technocratism characteristic to STS. The understanding of empirical existence of science has to be put in dependence on the initial task of philosophical reflection: to adjust the diversity of reality to the cultural and historical diversity of the mind.

The paper examines how eclecticism and syncretism got their various assessments in the history of natural sciences and the humanities. For instance, R. Boyle “collected ideas and facts all over the world”, and I. Newton was not only a creator of mechanics, but also a theologian and an alchemist. This is an example of large scale syncretism, not of a mixture of the heterogeneous, but of co existence of scientific texts and other texts which have no relation to science or made contrary to its principles. Sebastian Franck’s eclectic writings (the 16th century) induced W. Dilthey’s ideas about this historian, “the first person of the New times”, and A. Koyre’ґ s reflections on the formation of historical studies, their eclecticism as a combination of philosophical, scientific and theological thoughts. J. Donne’s eclectic “metaphysical poetry” (17thcentury, England) was highly esteemed by Th. Elliot and J. Brodsky, its history is also considered. U. Eco is treated as the author of the “opera aperta” concept, a form of syncretism and eclecticism that transfers his interpretation of syncretism to the level of transcendentality, an infinite variety of communicating meanings represented in knowledge of the humanities. All in all, it is shown how assessments of syncretism and eclecticism were changing in the history of European culture, where demands of theology, philosophical systems, classical sciences, and mainly of European logocentrism dominated. This is connected with rethinking of cause and effect, structural dynamism, “rejection of static and syllogistic perception of the world order”, with understanding that values are historical. Instead the “truefalse” binary relation there finally came uncertainty, relativity, discontinuity, the variety of concepts, the overcoming of philosophical systems’ and the very systemasy’s domination in philosophy. It happened in the period of modernity and postmodernity, when assessments of syncretism and eclecticism were rethought.

There is no definite tradition to separate an epistemology of the collective cognitive processes as the specific field of the gnoceology. But there is a real foundation for selfdetermination of the field – existence of the “collective cognitive phenomena”. They manifest themselves only in nonindividual cognitive processes. Till nowadays in professional publications such phenomena were fixed, represented and discussed in the framework of such new themes as communicative rationality, problem of the conventions, problem of the testimonial knowledge Author of this article makes attempt to show that family of the collective cognitive phenomena is wider then it is traditionally discussed and perceived. And it is not clear at all how many other new phenomena can be discovered. That is why it is useful and important (as author think) to fix clear and specially that epistemology of the collective cognitive processes is specific and independent new dimension of the epistemological work. In this connection content of the article includes representation and analysis of the phenomena, which are not in the focus of the philosophical community yet.

Popper calls natural world World One. It exists beyond human consciousness. World Two is the world of consciousness, and World Three is the world of spiritual and material products of human activity, i.e. what E.V.Ilenkov includes in the sphere of the ideal world. Popper considers Plato’s theory of eidoses a pioneer investigation of World Three. The article tests this hypothesis. The author argues that the contemporary doctrine of ontology of knowledge which is distinguished on the one hand from the knowledge itself, and, on the other, from reality which is reflected in it is a direct descendant of Plato’s treatment of eidoses. It is also argued that Popper’s World Three present a real sphere of being which is principally different from the ontology of theoretical knowledge which is merely associated with it. This association is also investigated in the article.

The article deals with the application of the «pleasure principle» to borders and categories of phenomenology of the man’s life world. Experience of pleasure is considered as an event of «world’s opening», as a way of a man being and kind of emotions having phenomenal nature. Language interpretations, through which the hedonistic experience reveals, are studied. Phenomenological approach to the analysis of the «pleasure principle» is compared and contrasted with the psychoanalytic approach. The reference to the phenomenological interpretation could be explained by the need to study this phenomenon in the broader philosophical, metaphysical, linguistic approaches. Pleasure experience in this regard is presented as an event of «world’s opening», «involvement to the world»; it presents a wide range of subject intentionality. The article emphasizes that the experience of pleasure is not a single thing, but it varies depending on the configuration of the living world. A man knows the «pleasure principle» owing to experiences of fun, joy, lust, happiness; all these states transmit various shades of hedonic experiences.Phenomenological approach to the analysis of pleasure operates in line with the approaches, which reveal the influence of emotions on human knowledge and understanding of the world, the interdependence of cognitive acts and bodilysensual nature of man. The article considers phenomenological interpretations of pleasure by H.G. Gadamer, J.P. Sartre, R. Barthes, etc.

The aim of this article is an ontological analysis of one of the most important concepts in the modern philosophical and scientific thought – concept of discourse. The problem of relations between discourse and reality, discourse and language is considered. From the standpoint of modern ontological approaches discourse is treated as a phenomenon that combines the basic oppositions of classical ontology, such as being and consciousness, reality and language. The discourse is not the product of any being as such, neither the language itself. It occurs at the intersection of these phenomena in the problem field created by their mutual attraction and mutual repulsion. So understood discourse is one of the main units of analysis of nonclassical ontology, characterized by a tendency to overcome the schemes and models of classical metaphysics. Inclusion of the concept of discourse in the scope of ontological research allows implementing a new approach to the solution of the basic problems of ontology: the problem of correlation between being and thinking, language and reality, ideal, meaningful and material, corporeal. Discourse is a phenomenon wherein the abovementioned oppositions come to the identity, which simultaneously contains the difference. The opposites, on which basis the ontological teachings of classical type are built, are contained in discourse in repealed form. Therefore, discourse can be used as one of the basic concepts in modern nonclassical ontology.