In modern conditions of the being globalized world more often speech comes about preservation of traditional culture and the personality mor-al level increase. In this aspect formation of moral culture of the personality is closely connected with humanistic outlook and its stability. Harmony of moral and humanity undoubtedly conducts to formation of the original person with strongly pronounced feelings of patriotism, good, justice and moral purity. Communication between moral culture of the personality and humanistic out-look is obvious. The humanistic outlook as the generalized system of views, belief, ideals in which the person expresses the relation to the surrounding him natural and social environment, is under construction round one center – the Person. If the humanity is a basis of system of certain views on the world, the person appears a backbone factor, a kernel of humanistic outlook. Important condition of humanity education is the organization of collective educational, socially useful activity, especially such its types where pupils are put in a situa-tion of direct manifestation of care of others, assistance and support, protection younger, weak. Thus, formation of moral culture of the personality begins with the early childhood and is fixed in the course of training and education.

В статье рассматривается этика ненасилия с точки зрения утверждения новой рациональности, обозначенной в диалогических отношениях и реализуемой, благодаря принципам ненасилия. Этика ненасилия представляется актуальной в свете коммуникативного подхода. В свою очередь, ключом к пониманию феномена ненасилия становится абсолютный нравственный принцип, этическая категория «человеческое достоинство». Этика ненасилия должна определять принципы, по которым строится система социального действия. Впервые мотивы социального действия разработал М. Вебер. Эти идеи продолжали развиваться западной философской и социологической мысли. В частности, Ю. Хабермас различает инструментальную (основана на эмпирических показателях) и коммуникативную (основана на моральном содержании коммуникации) типы рациональности. В современной философии вновь обостряется проблема определения целей и средств социального действия. На проблемы социальности в контексте существования человека в поисках смысла жизни все большее внимание обращают современные российские исследователи. Философы Р. Г. Апресян, А. А. Гусейнов, В. С. Степин, М. Т. Степанянц, И. К. Лисеев, А. П. Огурцов рассматривают различные аспекты теории ненасилия с точки зрения коммуникативного подхода, в основе которого находится исследование сущностных связей между людьми, направленное на выявление их характера и функционирования. Философы приходят к выводу, что на практике осуществить идею ненасилия, в первую очередь, можно путем установления в обществе горизонтальных отношений, которые заключаются в расположении субъект-объектной организации, когда любой член коммуникации рассматривается, с одной стороны, как объект, а с другой, - как субъект. При этом отмечается необходимость утверждения новой рациональности, обозначенной в диалоге и ориентированной на сотрудничество и согласие. Ненасилие определяет качественную связь людей друг с другом, благодаря тому, что каждый из них обладает достоинством, в то время как достоинство становится ключом к пониманию феномена ненасилия. Нравственный облик человека есть тот канал, по которому движется ненасилие. Можно сказать, что впервые в истории человечества, достоинство получает статус ценности тогда, когда возникла идея ненасилия.

Счастье является ключевой категорией этики Аристотеля. В его учении выявляется парадоксальность этого понятия: счастье не имеет универсального, всеобщего характера и не может претендовать на понятийный статус. Но необходимо различать мнимое, ил-люзорное счастье и подлинное, которое определяется критериями добра и справедливо-сти. Именно о таком счастье ведет речь Аристотель: это деятельность души согласно добродетели. И независимо от того, какие страдания выпадают на долю человека, он будет счастливым, если идет дорогой добродетели. В статье раскрывается тезис, согласно которому в дальнейшем развитии западной традиции был утрачен интерес к проблеме счастья в связи с возрастающей наукообразностью и логоцентризмом этого типа культуры. Поэтому в сегодняшнем мире чрезвычайно актуальным становится учение Аристотеля о подлинном, универсальном счастье, пронизанном добром и справедливостью.

The ancient myth of the labyrinth, for centuries, remains attrac-tive, both as an object of scientific research and a foundation of philosophical and artistic discourse. Despite the evident simplicity of its plot, it has motivated an extraordinary diversity of interpretations (mainly Western European) which inevitably raise question of the extent of its arbitrariness. This paper argues that the idea of the well-known myth, because of its narrative structure -a space-time level of abstractions, the fate, the existence, and the world order-does not simply reflect the ancient notions of the world order and man’s placein it, but represents a universal cosmological and existential model, interpretedin accordance with the cultural facts of the relevant era. Despite the variety of interpretations of the myth, its semantic invariant, in my view, can be reducedto the following formula: “Human existence, as a part of the world order, follows necessarily from it, but simultaneously, participates in its generation”.

The paper examines the socio-philosophical and anthropological views of K. D. Ushinsky. In this paper I try to outline the shaping of his philosophical system of history of philosophy, especially Hegel’s philosophi-cal system. I also focus on the qualitative features of the philosophical-anthropological system of Ushinsky, both in methodology and the understanding of the processes of formation of the ideal.

Human dignity, as a form of Human’s being and understanding of the world, lost its ontological ground, which is a direct consequence of the oblivion of the being. Human dignity is possible on the ground of free thinking about Being and it is a free thinking of the being. The person has refused possibility of thinking of the being, because the Being has turned into the tran-scendence, the beyond (for God has died). Heidegger considers that Being is not transcendental, the beyond and thinking about being is possible and essential. The transcendence of Being is rejected by the explanation of possibility of “initial meeting” of Being and human. For this purpose Heidegger carried out the following steps: New understanding of an ontological difference means not only distinction of Being and real things, and distinction between Being and the form of self-giveness of Being in the world. Heidegger defined forms of a self-giveness of Being in the world as a hierarchical order: Sein ist, Sein ereignis, Sein es gibt, which is defined by the degree of openness of the Being in the world. The modern thinking forgot the paradigm of Christ, as the example of “initial meeting”. The transition from conceptualization of the Being to ontologization of the Being creates ontology of the being.

The history of philosophy is, in a certain sense, the history of development of dialectics as a method of building the system of ontology and epistemology. Dialectics appeared in Ancient Greece as a result of the attempts of philosophers to express the changeability and movement of the world in the system of concepts. Socrates’s dialectics becomes a consciously applied method of searching for the truth in philosophy. This method gets developed in Plato’s philosophy, where the dialectics is expressed in a system of contradictory assertions which are both true and both false. This concept of the dialectics was solidified in Kant’s philosophy by fixing the system of antinomies in the sphere of pure reason. Hegel made an attempt to convert the dialectics into a necessary element of the scientific proof. Later this attempt was developed to the logical limit in the philosophy of Marx and Engels. This concept of the dialectics was criticized in the works of Russian philosophers I. Il’yin and S. Frank.

Freedom of conscience belongs to universal natural rights. It is defined as claim of the possibility to confess any religion or to confess no reli-gion at all, individually. Freedom of conscience has natural boundaries for its realization. First, this is a characteristic of the subject of religion, depending on age. Secondly, it is the abuse, which humiliates religious freedom and, thirdly, it is an incitement to a crime that leads beyond the boundaries of loyalty and annulation of rights. The boundaries of freedom of conscience are primarily manifested by the right of propagation of religious views and the right of ac-complishment of religious rites.

Ali ibn Abu Bakr ibn Abdulzhalil al-Ferghani ar-Rishtani al-Marginani (1123-1197) is one of scientists who made a huge contribution to the development of theology. He received the initial knowledge in Margelan, later he moved to Samarkand and remained there till the end of his life. He made pilgrimage to Mecca in 1444. In the book Kitab ul mashoyy (The book about Sheikhs) he provided names more than forty scientists from whom he got his education. The biggest, world renowned Burhanuddin al-Marginani’s work is the Al-Khidoya. Thanks to this work he became very known scientist in all Islamic world. In the previous works on a science about laws of Sharia, only insignificant questions in the jurisprudence sphere were considered, while there were the problems connected with national life of the population, and the society and state. From this point of view, detailed studying of unstable conditions, during his time, to distinguish priority questions from minor tasks, decision making process, and comprehensive study and deep supervision of these matters were demanded by the author. According to the scientists, the carrying-out research on Marginani’s work could help solving these problems.

Проблема бытия человека в мире – одна из главных проблем в философии М. Хайдеггера. Но такая многогранная тема не может быть в целостности схвачена в одной небольшой статье. В данной статье внимание обращено к самим фундаментальным основаниям человеческого бытия, к самому бытию, в котором становится возможным бытие человека. Бытие для людей в современном мире не является больше подлинной трансценденцией, как философия перестала для них быть истинным делом. Хайдеггер стремится вернуть фундаментальную философию. Он обращается к древнегреческому понятию φύσις, в котором скрывалось то, что еще полновластно определяло человеческое бытие. Φύσις, как самообразующее владычество, охватывает и держит в своей власти все в мире. Пусть постижения φύσις в современном мире может быть только через отрицание, через постижение Ничто.

Today, philosophy has lost its importance as “guide of humanity”. Why has it happen? Firstly, because the philosophy, as well as philosopher has changed the essence of philosophy - being “science” about wisdom, being wisdom, to live in accordance with the demands of wisdom. Philosopher cannot be an immoral, but, today he is obviously immoral, he is a same consumer of material benefits as every other human. To demand moral behavior from philosopher, today, is ridiculous: philosopher is dissolved in being that has lost its meaning. What to do in this case? It seems, one should return to intelligent life, especially, when any other attempt to live (to live out of sense, out of creation, out of comprehension) lead neither to success, nor to happiness, nor to the hope of meeting with. Moral - conscience – meaning of life are inseparable unity, a human in order to be a human being should join in himself these determinacies of being, otherwise – crash of human and humanity is inevitable. Today, the task set before the philosophy is to return its high importance, before philosopher is to recover the moral content of his service – these are the purpose and meaning of the present philosophy.

Since the antique Greeks “the cognition of the world” was not considered as an aggregate of the knowledges about the world but a comprehension of the “thing roots”. The Greek natural philosophers searched for the world principles but not the causes of the phenomena. The modern physics goes back to the Greek sources. It goes away more and more from the knowledges system and strives for the comprehension system. It replaces the causal description by the comprehension. A cognitive power intensiication of a theory (that is a comprehension factor) is accompanied by its prognostic power diminution. The special relativity has stated that any events cannot be connected one with other causally. The general relativity has revealed the space-time domains whose topology does not allow any prediction: it is the domains containing the singularities (black holes, Big Bang). The quantum mechanics has revealed the nonlocalities which rule out the common meaning of the causality. The quantum mechanics predicts what our mind chooses. The mind of a modern physicist allows the noumena, that is the objects being beyond the experience and beyond the Kantian Anschaulichkeit. A modern physical theory is based on the free metaphysical convention. That determines the status of the metaphysics in the modern philosophy of the natural science. (Zakharov V.D. Physics and freedom // Philosophy and the future of the civilization. Theses of reports in IV Russian philosophical congress, Moscow, 2005. Vol. 1: 449-450).

The research of the world outlook system is one of the main subjects of philosophy. The basis of any world-views is some world outlook or “mythological basis” (structure), which forms all elements of the system. The theistic and the a-theistic systems, to my mind, can be considered as the extreme points of understanding of this main core. Any world outlook is a consequence of the valuable experience of the human being. However, any such experience is connected with the certain “level of access” to the knowledge of the laws of the Universe. The author argues that the selection of central core is made according to free internal choice. The philosophical systems, according to which the world is a complex system of self-identified self-realized subjects, with varying degrees of freedom, most fully reflect the reality. Such, for example, is the philosophical system of Nikolai Losskii. Need of structuring of world outlook systems requires the recognition of the fact that the basis of any world outlook is directly dependent on the internal selection. To identify these is the task of the researcher, who is making an attempt to penetrate into the world-view from the inside and to maximally structure our knowledge of the world vision systems.

Considering metaphysics as one of the ways of human thinking we have to take in account the very concept of thinking itself. We may describe the latter as a special and highest product of organized matter. Thus, the sufficient level of organization of the matter may provide a certain level of its self-knowledge. But there is still no convincing explanation, what is fundamentally different in organization of the nerve tissue of the brain, which perceives, for example, the color red petals of roses, from one hand, and the biological tissue of these petals, from another, and why one type of matter - the substance of the brain - can reflect the properties of the matter of another species - the color of roses. We may talk a good deal about functional specifics, information processes, thin quantum effects, etc. But as the 19th century Russian religious philosopher P. Yurkevich wrote: “If physiologist observes the changes, the processes in the sensory nerves [...] with the help of the most perfect microscope, anyway, in addition to the physical or chemical changes of the nerve cells, no feeling, no thought he would not see [...] The natural order of study refers us to a metaphysical thought [...] It’s not in the electrical current in the nerves that [...] but in something else, that there is in the whole content of the world.” Leibniz in “Reflections on Metaphysics” referred to the “perception of qualities such as color, warmth, which does not exist outside of us; every substance (man – E. S.) is as if the whole world and the mirror of God or the whole of the universe”. An attempt to correlate the phenomenon of thinking and consciousness with the whole of the positions of metaphysics helps to develop some kind of the holographic model, which gives the opportunity to link the well-known and rationally perceived scientific facts to ideas of supra-rational knowledge, as well as with the idea of Revelation.

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.