Dynamic, creative ontology of knowledge is a conceptual horizon against which knowledge is produced. The horizon is not a one-dimensional mathematical line but rather a complex layered structure, in which consciousness, activity and communication intertwine with each other. It sets the boundaries of the reality and is a prerequisite for understanding as a creation of meanings. At these borders the theoretical mind is drawn to himself, taking the form of philosophical reflection and posing the eternal problems of universality and locality, reality and cognition, the subjective and the objective. This ontology reveals in itself a particular picture of social/cultural reality, which is taken by social epistemology to be a basis for every epistemological reconstruction and interpretation of particular cognitive situation. In its turn it requires the new interrelation of culture and sociality as diachronic and synchronic, dynamic and stable, temporal and spatial dimensions of the human existence.

Classical logic is built on the basis of generalization. This ensures its universality. The social character of scientific knowledge in social epistemology suggests to advance to the front individuality. Accordingly the logic of this system should not overcome, but retain individual features of its objects. The universality is provided not by the general properties of the results, but by there origin from the environment, where there are no habitual classical borders (truth-lies, odjective-subjective and so on). These boundaries are blurred. The task of logic becomes the overcoming of this new border between the space-context, which is not logic, but is necessary for its birth, and the logic itself.

This article analyzes various mechanisms involved in the genesis of such situations as: “S believes, that A is identical to B; S believes, B is identical with C, but S believes, that it is not true, that A is identical with C”. In particular, our interest will focus on those cases when all elementary judgments in this structure (including the latter one) are independently justified by personal sensual experience of the subject, her direct «acquaintance» with the state of affairs. In such circumstances, these judgments can not be called totally wrong or mistaken. Moreover, in some considered cases these structures are not just possible, but fundamentally indispensable. Reasons of genesis of such situations differ depending on what we mean by A, B and C (properties of phenomena, properties of objects or objects themselves), or depending on the role that natural language (with its limited vocabulary and vague applicability of concepts) plays in these mechanisms.First section is dedicated to cases of nontransitivity in judgments about sameness of phenomena (colors, pitches of sounds, etc.). The second section is about cases when we deal with primary qualities of physical objects (height, volume, etc.). And the third section considers cases when we make judgments about identityof things themselves.

The reference problem as a problem of empirical classification is expressed in lack of rigid communication between names, essential signs and objects. Scientists do not address the problem of a reference, it is fixed in philosophical judgment of problems of empirical classification. Respectively, the problem of reference can be put by philosophy of science and is turned to classical science for the purpose of comprehension by scientists of difficulties of classifying as corollaries of mechanisms of functioning of empirical classification. It would help to carry out transition from empirical classification to its more highorganized form – the theoretical classification, capable to remove and solve methodological problems of empirical classifying. Root of the problem is the idea of classical science of the existence objects regardless of knowledge and, accordingly, the necessary connection between the elements of knowledge (names and essential features) and objects. Linguistic philosophy considers the problem as a problem of language reference, considering the special syntax, semantics and pragmatics and logical means of resolving it. However, the scientific classification is not only a language, fixing the total set of items in the common names (universals), but also as a theory, which is built with respect to many items of theory as individualized objects. Contact name and object classification in the organization due to the peculiarities of the theoretical work. In taxonomic classification problem of reference due to regulatory rules of the organization work of scientists contributing a situational research in the situation and, ultimately, lead to the problem of stable reference.

The idea of the feminist philosophy of science about classical science as masculine enterprise is discussed An interpretation of this evaluation as a key metaphor that can be used for description of the classical science is proposed. It is demonstrated that masculinity is a characteristic not only of classical science, but also of the image of science – the whole representation about the nature of science and it’s place in human existence. Gender features of philosophical image of the classical science are identified on the base of analysis of linguistic tools which Francis Bacon has used for the description of science.

The article discusses possible role of measurement in the quantum-mechanical description of physical reality. The widely spread interpretations of quantum phenomena are considered as indicating the apparent connection between conscious processes (such as observation) and the properties of the microcosm. The reasons for discrepancies between the results of observations of the microcosm and macrocosm and the potential association of consciousness with these reasons are closely investigated. The mentioned connection is meant to be interpreted in the sense that the probable requirement for a complete understanding of quantum theory is the adequate description of consciousness within it and that the correct theory of consciousness should include quantum-mechanical theoretical apparatus. The author draws conclusions about the current state of the “measuring” problem in its relationship with consciousness. The research is based on current ideas of several leading physicists, philosophers and mathematicians.

The autor investigates communication between the direct prospect which has become since the era of the Renaissance a fundamental principle of painting, and formation of the new European scientific knowledge. Consideration of similar communication allows to understand how this principle is correlated with the fascinating idea of exact reproduction of reality and as within an embodiment of similar idea there is a gradual loss of interest to painting because by the XX-th century actively developing technologies start coping with this task much better. The direct prospect as a means, provided with scientific support, found independent life and started defining the content of developing new European culture. The celebration of the new European science which has proved out and in art, led to blossoming of technologies, a technical way of the relation to life which inevitably conducted the esthetic sphere in its classical look to selfabolition. It was succeeded by various skillful technicians of impact on the person, successfully carrying out a manipulation its representations, impressions and emotions.

When telescopic observation had found nothing on the near side (Roger Boscovich had established by 1753 that it lacks even an atmosphere), the far side still remained as a preserve for whatever we did not yet know but had for so long felt we must believe. It was the coup de grвce of the men behind the Soviet space program to go to the other side and see for themselves, and while they could not have said as much what they were in fact doing was checking to make sure that there was no atmosphere there, no vegetation, no seas or grottoes or beasts with legs like camels, no spirits.

In our philosophy the problem of the reduction of chemistry to physics has been traditionally treated from the point of view of the concept “the form of motion of matter”. In the long run this position is tautological: chemistry studies chemical phenomena. The present article treats the problem of the reduction of chemistry to physics by basing on the concepts – “hypotheticodeductive theory”, “the ontological reduction”, “the scientific realism”. Our analysis is not talking about how nature works , but allows us to clarify the structure of scientific knowledge.

The article is devoted to the cultural dialogue and relation of the intellectual traditions of the East and the West. The author offers the interpretation of Heidegger’s «From the Dialogue about Language between Japanese and Asking», showing the actuality of questions, raised in it, in the modern philosophical context, taking into consideration the changes, taking place in science in the modern era of its development. Particular attention is given to the «Eastern» and «Western» ontology features of holistic and analytical styles of thinking, the question of the nature and essence of language. The relationship Language-Mind-Being/Nothingness is considered in the bright historical-cultural context of the world philosophical discourse, involving eastern spiritual heritage.

Today philosophy is not particularly concerned with philosophical problems but with ones of its social existence. Is this a sign of our times? Apparently it is, for “the eternal question” whether the philosophy is science has been decisively solved today. Philosophy is the complete science taken as a social institution, no more an amateurish enterprise; in its current social status it does not differ from general linguistics, theoretical sociology, civil history, pure mathematics. Philosophy has to justify its topicality, theoretical relevance, necessity for certain theoretical innovations in the context of modern scientific problems. At the same time philosophy has to establish its practical relevance, i.e., the applicability to meet the sociopolitical, economic, cultural and information needs. Its ability for this is doubtful for officials and laymen, but is important for philosophy as ever. It appears that it is here to look for specifics of modern philosophy: it is located within the common destiny with modern science, culture as a whole.The ongoing science reform has set the philosophers (and other scientists) to the new realities, and they develop the necessary mechanisms of adaptation. There is nothing wrong with improving the Russian Science Index (RINZ) to the international level, in creating new systems of indexing and the inclusion of at least parts of them in a global database. The same is for establishing new science foundations and other sources to support science. The promoting of Russian scientific journals will be also a step in the right direction. But it should not be forgotten: the scientific infrastructure must grow slowly, in communication with scientists and not be born like Athena from the head of Zeus. For this to work, one needs not just to subordinate a recalcitrant population Universe of knowledge to one’s political will. The involving in infrastructure transformation must be a social program for living people with their passion for scientific research – authors, grantees, future leaders of ratings, motivated scientists. Otherwise, there will only a bureaucratic infrastructure dropped from the top without any human agent.