Эволюционная онтология от традиционной отличается: 1) предметом; 2) способом его интерпретации; 3) общественной ролью. 1) Предметом традиционной онтологии было абстрактное понимание бытия. Предметом эволюционной онтологии наряду с природным бытием, а также онтически оппозиционным бытием культурным является его онтический конфликт с природой. 2) Традиционная онтология в трактовке природного бытия предпочитала стабильность, пассивность и обратимость, эволюционная онтология подчеркивает процессуальность, онтическую активность и необратимость. 3) Традиционная онтология была абстрактно академичной и индивидуально утешающей. Эволюционная онтология, которая открывает суть глобального экологического кризиса, может выполнять функцию культурно-парадигматическую. С помощью этой онтологии, опирающейся на научную аргументацию, мы должны попробовать переломить духовную хищническую парадигму.

On the basis of the formulation and solution of the Initial Problem of Reality, namely, the Problem of the Beginning, first, the initial structure of Reality is revealed that penetrates all worlds including the physical nature, human being, universe… - Ontology and Monism coincide. This means that the Occam’s Razor is reduced to the Ontological Imperative, to the requirement of the completeness of Reality; second, the presence of the Initial World Tradition is revealed, namely, the Ontological (Monistic) Tradition with its Historical Breeding Grounds, each of which is a Philosophical-Methodological Center according to the structure of Ontology; third, it is established that this Tradition is alive only then and is discovered only then when it is found that it is born anew – the appearance of the FMTs-Dynamism with its strategy of dynamism makes it possible to elucidate the structure of the historical Breeding Grounds of the Initial Tradition, including the structure of Pyphagorean. It is shown that Sufficient and Necessary in the initial Mathematical Units and Formulas cor-relate with the structure of the Ontological Formulas. Sufficient has the nature of Algebra and Necessary has the nature of Geometry. In turn, the structure of Algebra itself corresponds to the essential measurements of Reality, corresponds to the structure of Motion; Geometry as the measurement of Reality from the side of Existence corresponds to the ontological fact of Meeting of all worlds. A New Era appears along with the appearance of a New Ontology on the Earth. Philosophy plays the role of a Cosmic Grain and Methodology the role of means to process the Earth’s ground for this Grain. The structure of this ground is composed of the state of the art of science, technology, art, literature, politics, economy, culture. According to the new continuation of the Ontological (Monistic) Tradition, the Era of Dy-namism begins now. The first step in launching the strategy of dynamism is the creation of the Program of designing Science correlated with Ontology. Such Program is created at the FMTs-Dynamism, and many things are already implemented: Postulate of Dynamism; Process—State concept; a new variation principle called the local variation principle (LVP); the mathematical apparatus suitable for the new continuation of the optical-mechanistic analogy and the study of the nature of the physical vacuum opening prospects for the creation of a new, namely, trajectory-wave physics.

Автор ставит задачу найти онтологические основания для понимания прошлого как бытия. Автор показывает, что бытие не должно отождествляться только лишь с действительностью настоящего, потому что настоящее не имеет длительности и пребывает в движении к будущему. Автор указывает, что обычно в философии категорией «небытие» объемлются различные онтологические феномены. Он предлагает провести границу между двумя типами небытия: небытие положительное (небытие того, что было и исчезло, превратившись в нечто другое) и небытие отрицательное или абсолютное (небытие того, чего вообще никогда не было). В статье делается вывод, что реальность прошлого, неразрывно связанная с действительностью моментального настоящего, раскрывающего возможности будущего создают представление о длящемся бытии, как единстве прошлого, настоящего и будущего.

The ontology is one of the most ancient philosophical disciplines. Problems of being interested ancient wise men more than all other philosophical questions. Eventually the problematics of understanding of being became complicated. If in Antiquity as being was understood micro- and macrocosm, and in the Middle Ages Divine being, that, since an era of New time and to the present being finds itself in all spheres of life of society, forms of public consciousness, in natural, humanitarian and technical sciences. The most important form of being in the modern world is being of society and being of the person. Personal being represents the whole world of the individual with his pleasures, pain, fears, dreams etc. Interaction between persons assumes also interaction of various spheres of being at interpersonal and personal and public levels. The person in the process of knowledge of his being faces various situations, such as life, illness, death, loss, desire, disappointment, etc. However, it doesn’t mean that the person starts to realize the life completely by any intermediate boundary. This process can occupy all life and there is no guarantee that on a life outcome the person can answer all interesting his questions.

One of the most important problems of cognition is data acquisition to support the possibility of human activity, including prediction of the effects of human actions during the interaction with the objects of reality and the interaction of the latter among themselves. In response to this need the subject of cognition starts to distort, in some cases, the features of being in itself and ascribe to it attributes that are not peculiar to it. These attributes include the epistemological effects that consist in the identification of possible outcomes of interaction of the things and the characteristics of the things and the associated with one of the most common types of their description in the terms of properties and quality. The content of the concepts property and quality is something new, which is different from the interacting objects themselves. Many “truths” of language have been incorporated in the pre-reflexive period of development of cognition. The human everyday experience, which is effected through common sense situations, become the meanings of the language. In this connection, the methodological principles of analytic philosophy, such as “the world is a text”, require a more critical stance. Concepts continue to being incorporated in the “truths” of language even during the contemporary reflexive period of cognition. Among such concepts are the potential energy, the inertial mass of the body, and, at a deeper level, the gravitational mass. The results of the physical sciences, on which philosophy of physics and ontology traditionally rely, should be perceived more critically when analyzing the ontological problems that concern the understanding of certain aspects of the Being.

В работе рассматривается проблема понимания категории «Я» в связи с категориями «бытие», «небытие», «Ничто». Автор предлагает понимать категорию Ничто как тотальное несовпадение с бытием и небытием. Такой подход, на его взгляд, позволит приблизиться к разгадке человеческого Я, постоянно ускользающего от непосредственного познания. Автор указывает, что Я трудно обнаружить по той причине, что оно ищется в бытии теми же методами, которые используются для познания бытия. Однако, наличие Я (как субстанционального ядра) совсем не то же самое, что наличность вещей в бытии. Я не то же самое, что структуры, образующие личность человека, т.к. элементы этой структуры формируемы в бытии.

All processes in both objective and subjective reality can be naturally derived from basal representations of things and their mutual influences. Cogitative operations and facts of perceptible world are quite similar though they are not fully symmetric. Proceeding from this it is easy to describe different cogitative operations and cognition as well as to solve the knowledge reliability problem. That was demonstrated in the following work presented in a theses form.

What is the difference between the individual who has become an independent subject of civil society, and the individual of a certain community that belongs in a social plan and what does his independence and autonomy mean? It becomes clarified, especially in comparison to the communal individual who is not acting only on his own, but acts on behalf of the community, as his representative. His significant acts are community acts, instead of his own. For this reason, when the communal individual is punished for certain offenses, he is punished as a particular organic part of a whole, established by the whole. If a person harms other community members, not only him punished but all the community, any other members of his community. In a word, each associate bears responsibility for the acts of each other member. But it also means that unity of the individual with the community isn’t absolute and the final decision is his own. Unlike the communal individual the independent subject is individually responsible for all his acts: he is both the starting and terminal point where the act is born. For this reason, when each person is considered as the unique reason of his acts and affairs, all demands following from such status return to him. Therefore, the person within his subjectivity can’t refer to any other reasons, on circumstances compelling him for acts harming to community, or to other people.

The problem of the person is one of the main in all world philosophical thought and along with the problem of existence of the person is the key in the sphere of philosophical doctrine about the person. According to modern the science, at the heart of human development lies its labor activity, which the person carries out always within a social context. I analyze how philosophers of antiquity, the Middle Ages, and Renaissance consider the problem of human essence, and also in Modern Times what representatives of the German classical philosophy have said about it. Finally I consider the solution of this problem as is presented in works of the Russian philosophers.

Irony is considered as a form of negative attitude of a man to-wards reality. Three evolutionary forms of irony have been distinguished – the antique, the romantic and the postmodern. It is shown that in the course of development of irony the scope of its criticism has expanded. The scope of antique irony is the erudite (scholar?), that of the romantic irony is the erudite and the aesthete and the scope of postmodern irony is the erudite, the aesthete and the user. Two philosophical anthropological senses of irony have been revealed. First, irony fixes (registers) dangerous existence as a stray one, sec-ondly, irony introduces the strategy of achieving a safe existence by a man, which is reduced to the actions of recovery.

Anthropological finds such as “Lucy” and “Toumai” have finally destroyed the labour theory of F. Engels. The appearance of upright walking before the formation of labour created a problem of man’s origin in a new way, as upright walking is one of the ineffective ways of movement. A historic appearance of a powerful compensatory mechanism overcoming defects of upright walking was necessary. Such a compensatory mechanism was the emergence of a sign language, allowing the ancestors of humans to survive and then to take the dominant position in nature. It is possible to outline the solution of the problem only from philosophical positions. I believe that only one quality separates the evolutionary stages of life. And the possibility of its appearance is the interaction between two tendencies (by K. Lorenz): intra-specific and interspecific aggression. This is the peculiarity of a philosophical approach to anthropology. The origin of the language in the form of gestures was considered by Condillac E. and supported by academician N. Marr. But they were not able to define the reason for the appearance of the sign language. The process of man’s origin began 15 million years ago on the basis of sociality existing in the animal world in the form of herd or flock. Under the influence of intraspecific aggression (according to K. Lorenz) the group of similar phenomena such as a language (primarily in the form of a sign language), formation of labour (on the basis of a sign language), and the appearance of consciousness as a generalized reflection of reality sequentially appeared. It is after the appearance of consciousness that man appears.

By “reason” we define the ability for independent sustainable progressive development. Beings that possesses this ability, even if they have no knowledge or skill of something, can learn everything within some time. However, modern man, at least massively, does not possess this ability. That is why he is doomed to external control and permanent degradation, described in the myths about the Fall and the Yugas, that extend over whole centuries, from the golden age to the lean years. In our view, man is a being prone to various self-zonking (drug addictions) and senseless destructive activity, slavery and mechanistic behaviour according to prescribed programs (tradition, religion, laws, education, etc.). There are huge amounts of evidence supporting this. For instance, is it possible for a community of intelligent beings to have as the most profitable business, drug trafficking and arms trade for killing its own kind? A great abundance of similar questions can be raised. A pretentious definition of Homo sapiens appeared only in the New Times. Earlier, man was considered rational creature only potentially, which is proved by the phenomenon of Mowgli. Erasmus of Rotterdam considered insanity to be an attribute of man. In general, human insanity is one of the perennial themes of philosophy. The genealogy of man is also a dark question. Which really is? Who is the ancestor of man?

Practices of normalization were the subject of philosophical attention of M. Foucault. Normalization is the mechanism that turns knowledge into power. This idea can be used in bioethics to explain its regulatory content. Bioethics is multidimensional, and, therefore, has many definitions. Callahan highlighted the theoretical, clinical, normative and cultural Bioethics (Callahan 1995). In the normative and cultural Bioethics moral choice involves an ideological, social context. Foucault’s structuralist methodology pointed out the historical conditioning of epistemes, which become the basis for constructing the power relations in society. If the ideas of what is normal historically and culturally are relative, then how is the norm stated in Bioethics? The subject of bioethical debates can be understood as a question: what is considered normal in relation to life and death of a man, his nature? For the representatives of conservative Bioethics liberal position in an excuse of ‘abnormal’. A need for a child can be perceived in society either as a norm or deviation from norm depending on family type, method of reproduction, the concept of ‘own’ child, sex-role functions of male and female in gamete donation. After normalization of value in Bioethics proceeds its socialization. Social stability is an absolute value, therefore the norms that may conflict with individual choice, but help to preserve unity in the community are supported.

Аксиологическая сущность биоэтики обусловлена антропологическим поворотом в науке. Центральная проблема биоэтики – формирование в общественном сознании аксиологии жизни – иерархически организованной системы ценностей, главной из которых является жизнь человека, а в качестве подчиненных выступают ценности, наполняющие жизнь смыслом, делающие ее полноценной, дающие силы и стимул жить. Предмет, основные категории и основополагающие принципы биоэтики как формы научного социального знания имеют социально-аксиологическую сущность, которая выражается наличием в биоэтике социально и культурно обусловленных ценностей, формирующих в обществе отношение к жизни и здоровью человека и направляющих вектор гуманистического развития науки и медицины. Выделение на основе ценностного подхода проблем, связанных, вопервых, с реализацией норм и принципов врачебной этики, во-вторых, с актуализацией гендерных аспектов сохранения здоровья и благополучия человека, в-третьих, с аксиологическим обоснованием человеческой жизни – определяет основные направления исследования биоэтики.

The article reviews the traditional concept of ‘utopia’, and gives a new linguistic interpretation of this concept. I analyze the texts of Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Julius Caesar. I try to reveal the stylistic similarities and semantic identity of Th. More’s Utopia in relation to Roman and Greek history. I, therefore, attempt to prove, contrary to prevailing opinion, that Th. More’s Utopia represents a detailed analysis of the past, and not of the future.

In the early modern period (the end of the nineteenth century.) an ongoing evolution of systems of thought affected fundamental changes in philosophy and vision of a literary world. This article discusses how to change the relationship between philosophy and literature in the 21st century as they are transformed into the global space and time conditions of the information environment.

В докладе на материале книги итальянского писателя А. Барикко «Гомер. Илиада» рассматриваются проблемы рецепции античного наследия в современной культуре, а именно восприятие гомеровского мировоззрения современным читателем и возможность его передачи средствами романного жанра. Сдвиг мировоззрения от коллективной доминанты к ценности индивидуальной личности порождает переоценку феномена национальной войны как космической необходимости, характерного для архаического сознания; драматизация повествования за счет устранения богов как активного начала и передача рассказа действующим героям подчеркивает личностный характер происходящего и приводит к переоценке эпических ценностей. Таким образом, художественными средствами А. Барикко вскрывает противоречие между гомеровским героизмом, который продолжает вдохновлять человечество, и современным мироощущением.

в статье анализируется проблема деструкции субъекта, раздвоения личности, описанные в психоанализе, особенно в теории неврозов З. Фрейда. Феномен расщепления человеческого «Я» автор объясняет внутрипсихическим самоотчуждением человека, конфликтом несовместимых ценностных установок личности, направленных против ее сущностных устремлений к автономности, индивидуальности, установкам свободы и развития. На основе онтологической свободы как своей сущности, человек творит многообразие духовных смыслов, выбирая их как смыслы своего бытия, ценности, переводя их через свою деятельность из должного в сущее. Ценностные смыслы могут быть положительными или отрицательными по нравственному содержанию. Отчуждение заключается в поклонении человека внешним результатам своей исторической деятельности – капиталу, государству и т.д., когда они из средства его развития превращаются в самоцель, в средства их укрепления. В последнем случае человек расщепляется, прежде всего, внутренне на две сферы своего бытия: личную и безличную. В результате их несовместимости личные ценности чаще вытесняются в бессознательную сферу психики, а в официальной сознательной сфере жизни их прикрывают безличные. Однако исход всегда индивидуален. В зависимости от уровня субъектности, в условиях отчуждения многие индивиды, видимо, находят два способа удовлетворения своих личных устремлений и этим определенной степени разрешения внутреннего конфликта: идентифицируя свои личные интересы с интересами безличных институтов и норм, или осознавая в различной степени и отделяя их от интересов внешней господствующей сферы.

In the modern ethical discourse there are multiple polemics on ethical absolutism, bringing to the forefront two commandments - “you shall not murder” (commonly expanded to non-committing of violence) and “you shall not lie”. To understand the meaning of this polemics it is very important to turn to the European philosophical-ethical tradition (to the ideas of Kant in this case). This paper highlights the idea that two principles, mentioned above, were not equal for Kant. If lie was impossible for him, then violence turned out to be permissible.

In reception of new knowledge the big role plays the logical thinking, as well as in ways and methods of formation of new concepts. But experience of cognitive activity testifies that the usual logic, in many cases, appears insufficient for the decision of scientific problems; process of gaining of the new information cannot be either inductive, or deductive. The important place in this process is occupied by the intuition, giving to knowledge a new impulse and a direction. The intuition, as the specific cognitive process, direct-ly produces new knowledge, generally speaking.