In this paper, I try to explore Bennabi’s contribution to social theory, his views and the approach he developed in dealing with issues concerning human society and civilization. I also try to show his efforts to build a huge theory that would apply to every human society, and to encircle all of civilization. Because Bennabi was raised in circumstances that appeared to confirm the military, scientific, economic and political superiority of the west. He tried to analyse and define the causes ofmuslim failure. As a response to western colonialism. Bennabi supported the idea of providing the Muslims with means of self-defense and self-justification, instead of merely transforming the immediate social conditions of the people. Besides, Bennabi was excited by the historical experience of Japan, which had been brought from the medieval to the modern age in only fifty years. Despite Muslims and Japanese similar had attempted to learn from Western civilization, the Japanese alone had refused to borrow the destructive ideas of the west and remained faithful to their culture and history.

Coming into the 21st century, Korean religious (Christian) societies seem to lose the hope for social transformation. There are few voices to speak out for the common good especially on behalf of the helpless people. Prevailing is a relativist social ethic, which is ironically based on absolutist understandings of religious beliefs, that each social group deserves its own share, and any request for an ultimate ethical calling sounds obtrusive and extravagant. This is one of the worst aspects in our contemporary religious ethics. This paper suggests that the legacy of the Korean minjung theology be reconsidered seriously in order to overcome the present predicament of religious social ethics. With a specific hermeneutic eye of minjungcentrism, we could establish a postmodern religious responsibility that avoids both relativism and absolutism and yet encourages an absolute calling for justice and liberation in the midst of historical relativity.

God as the universal reflection of Human essence has discovered Materialistic monism with understanding of substance as the reality of all existed, including universal: qualities – continuity, interruptness, corpuscleness, reflection; characteristics – transition from quantity to quality and vice versa, unity and struggle of opposites, denial of denial, unity of substance; states – rest, development, form, motion; processes – physical, chemical, biological, mental, where Man and God are united. The Materialistic consists of the unity of methodological, theoretical, sociological, statistical and practical levels of cognition, mastered by the Man through five known historical ways of the vital activity. Each successive historical period of life is characterized by more perfect forms of the Man bodiness, his common character and relationships, subject interaction, reflection and consciousness, and hence by it considerable broadening of the boarders of cognition and its set of instruments. Philosophical significance of the levels of cognition consists in their possibility to consider a phenomenon as universal, general, particular,separate and single; stratificated methods of cognition and technologies of penetration into different aspects of the phenomenon essence. The methodological cognition with its own distinctive methods contains all other methods, thus unity pretends to be the Modern Philosophy, including monistic, systemic, dialectial, metaphisical and empirical methods of cognition, where there is no contradiction of Science and Religion.

Written in broad strokes, this paper attempts to draw form Krishnamurti’s life and teachings, a hermeneutics of the human soul’s quest-journey towards transcendent wholeness. It begins with an attempt to frame K’s “process” (the name given to the painful ordeals in his youth that many believe were the catalyst responsible for his metamorphosis) through a variety of disciplines and cultural perspectives, some of which underscore the impasse of scientific objectivity and the limits of phenomenalist categories in general. It then explores the procedures and conceits of present technologies of self-transformation via pseudomeditative body work and suggests that this subject can only be confirmed by an experience so intimately and subversively (to its own object) subjective that it risks undermining its own legitimacy in the face of our body-phobic Cartesian cultural ethos that holds sacrosanct the mind-body split. It then explores the deeper origins and history of this problem from the pre-Socratics to the misconceptions of modern mathematics about the proper place of metaphor and paradox and underscores how present day false consciousness fails to discriminate between a “noumenal” world and its conditioned “phenomenal” counterfeit copy. It ends with a brief meditation on K’s process.

INTRODUCTION: Philosophy is the unique science which considers all other sciences in systematically unity (Kant). The classical anthropology (Platon, Aristoteles, Descartes, Hume, Kant, etc.) considers the human and his "spheres" (biological, psychological, logical, philosophical, theological) and his interdependence with nature and society. A philosophical theology investigates spiritual phenomena, described by religions and parapsychology in context of ethics, epistemology (incl. metaphysics), aesthetics. A theological anthropology should consider these phenomena multidimensional in context of a holisticscience, i.e. physico- (Kant), bio- (Lüke), psycho-, logico-, philosophical theology, etc. [Lit.: Neu, Michailov: Integralanthropology. In: Proc. 21st World Congr. Philos. Istanbul. Press FISP 280‐281, 2003; Theol. Anthrop. In: Book: New Pathways for Eur. Bioethics. Ed.: Eur. Ass. Med. Ethics, Leuven, p. 53/60, 2006; Med. Ethics, 21st Ann. Conf. EACME (Ed.) Zürich, p. 53, 2007]. CONCEPTION: Regrettably philosophical theology is reduced to nearly philosophical and theological ethics: Both ethics in the future should realize a common scientific integrated ethics based on philosophy, theology, and psychology incl. of great cultures - Brahmanism, Buddhism, Christianism-Mosaism, Confucianism, and Mohammedanism. The present moral philosophy is very pluralistic: Many views concerningnormative and metaethics (deontology, axiology), also relativism, absolutism (incl. utilitarism), noncognitivism are present. A similar situation exists in moral theology: Not only in context of philosophy (consequentialism, justice, protectionism), but more - of theology are existent contradictionary differences concerning ethics in the great religions (related to God, Spirit/Soul, reincarnation, etc.). A future philosophical theology needs a renewal of its scientific theoretical andexperimental fundamentals (controlled observations: criterion for intersubjectivity) concerning theological anthropology incl. not only occidental epistemology (metaphysics, scientific theory, etc.), but also oriental - esp. Brahmanistic and Buddhist (self realization by Yoga, Tibetan, Zen Buddhism) and scientific evaluation of spiritual phenomena by biophysics, physiology, psychology and formal (Aristoteles, Gautama), real, transcendental (Kant), metaphysical (Hegel) normal logic. Areconsideration of application of philosophy of arts, esp. aesthetics in philosophical theology is also necessary (incl. inspirations in music/Bach, Beethoven, Händel, painting/Leonardo da Vinci, sculpture/Michelangelo). CONCLUSION: Scientific and political support for a renovation of theological anthropology and philosophical theology could help essentially for a realization of UNO-Agenda 21 for better total (incl. spiritual) health and peaceful world.

The philosophical thought of Nicolas Malebranche (1638-1713) does not constitute two aspects of a spirit or a man that is that of the man of God and that of the man of letters. Malebranche, as a successor of Descartes in the history of European philosophy, although God is not the wise for him but He is wisdom and science Himself. For Malebrache, God is the reason of the world. God, as a substantial source, is able to create the ideas of the spirit of man and motivate his body. However, there is an archetypal idea of soul which comes in front of the body. According to the mentioned metaphysical definition, God is not doubtable in soul which is related to his Word. Malebranche introduces a rationalism emerging the mathematical values to provide an accurate and justifiable idea for Godbecause the continuous search of truth within sciences and our fear of a false existence can find answers in the system of arithmetic and algebra. Therefore, Malebranche’s thought constitutes “an intellectual mystic” denoting the connection of logic and belief.

To the faithful it is proper to draw the conclusion that in religion the appropriate way comes from the cultivation of virtue to the possibility of his endowment with grace; he should realize that the opposite way, from his endowment with grace with the view to make his way to virtue easier is not but an illusory way with a limited moral and religious meaning. From here follows that to God we cannot address but desires which passed the test of virtue. This is the rational Kantian position on grace, with regard to the rational finite being that is man. The existence, as an exception, of the unconditional grace to some human beings thatrepresents the direct relation with the infinite being, do not entitle us to imagine that being unconditioned by the morality necessary to common beings, this kind of beings could ask for God any gift; since the grace as a divine gift becomes useless out of his relation with the divinity and his holiness, that represents for the finite being a moral model.

Doubtless interest for a modern science represents the answer to a question on the reasons of passion among intellectuals in Russia and Germany for overconfessional currents like theosophy and antroposophy. The author distinguishes the spiritual crisis like the most important prerequisite of passion for works of E. Blavatskaja and R. Shtajner. E. V. Kriageva-Kartseva compares the activity of different theosophical and antroposophical societies in two countries at the beginning of the ХХ century and draws some conclusions. For example, the author regards the orthodoxy as the important factor, which has kept the expansion ofsyncretic religions to Russia.

An atheist argument usually goes like this. If God exists and is omnipotent as believed, He could have created any possible world as he pleased. The existence of moral evil, though, makes problematic the existence of God or His omnipotence at least. Plantinga's answer to an atheist is: it is not that God, as omnipotent, could have created any possible world as he pleased, but rather it is that God, even though omnipotent could not have created the world as he pleased. I formulate an atheist's view of moral evil which resulted from the free will of human beings, and examine Plantinga's view that distinguishes between an act of creation, and an act of actualization of state of affairs. He asserts that creation of earth, heaven, or Socrates can be attributed to God, but the actualization ofnecessary states of affairs, and among contingent states of affairs, false possible states of affairs cannot be attributed to God. And I explain Plantinga's view that God cannot be held responsible for actualizing state of affairs implemented by free choice, and that human action with free will can only be attributed to human being, not to God. At last, I will criticize Plantinga's view not to be a genuine compatibilism between the existence of God and moral evil, and sketch the compatibilism between providential determinism and moral evil.

The article focuses on the key aspects (which are the principles of holism and evolution) of the integral approach of the modern American philosopher, Ken Wilber. The theory of Ken Wilber is analyzed in the framework of the new paradigm of science, which is being developed during the last decade of the twentieth and the beginning of the twenty-first century. The advantages of the works of Ken Wilber are the following: firstly, the scientist was able to systematize and integrate dozens of other theoretical approaches, most of which are relatively new and not well-known. Secondly, Ken Wilber’s theory is important for the reason that it can serve as a methodological and “practical” method, which can be applied to the study of any phenomenon, taking into consideration as many aspects of reality as possible, as well as those theoretical approaches, which are otherwise unrelated to each other. It makes possible to avoid reductionism and fragmentation of knowledge in the study of (religion). The article shows the importance of Wilber’s theory for the area of religious studies. I have built existing theories that study religion into a methodological “map”, which provides a basis for such kind of approach to religion that can integrate positivistic, phenomenological, functionalist, psychological and other theories in the area of religious studies. Such theories, taken separately, study only one aspect of religion, representing a fragmentary knowledge of this phenomenon, and this aspect is compensated by an integral approach. In addition, it can be hypothesizedthat antagonisms between religious bodies and religious persons can be interpreted and explained as a conflict between different structures of consciousness, (studied by K. Wilber in his works as well).

The Declaration of the Parliament of the World’s Religions tries to establish a global ethic by jointly affirming some irrevocable and unconditional ethical directives on the grounds of their special ultimate realities. Through some case analysis of Christianity and Confucianism, this essay argues that, because these religions often assign a supreme position to these ultimate realities alone and make them trump anything else in a particularistic way, they have to subordinate those ethical directives to these realities. As a result, those ethical directives themselves are no longer irrevocable and unconditional, for they are conditioned bythese ultimate realities and thus are revocable in the cases of conflict with the latter. In other words, the particularistic claims of these religions may permit their adherents to perform such immoral deeds as murder, theft, or lying for the sake of their ultimate realities in real life. Therefore, if the world’s religions genuinely hope to establish a global ethic on the basis of their own religious grounds, they must trust in their ultimate realities in a universalistic way instead of in a particularistic way—that is, they may not place these ultimate realities above a minimum humanist principle ‘every human being must be treated humanely’ absolutely, but should assign a supreme position to the latter and intrinsically integrate it with their trust in their special ultimate realities through a critical and creative self-transformation.

From the end of the XX century academic community has been extensively discussing globalization issues affecting economy, politics and culture. First and foremost there grew anticipations of an ecological disaster on a global scale associated with environmental pollution. Solution of these problems on a global scale is based on a sustainable development strategy. The sustainable development is a balance between natural environment (biosphere) and artificial environment (technosphere). Russian thinkers of the early XX century introduced a notion of noosphere. One of the landmarks of sustainable developmentmust become ecosophy. Asian civilization has been developing in the spirit of ecosophy. It shows that one can live in equilibrium with natural surroundings and scientific progress, preserving spiritual culture and maintaining high spiritual standard. Extending of culture dialogue became more essential in XXI century.

The aim of this paper is to consider the vicissitudes of “area studies” from the Second World War to the present focusing eventually on the normative imperative to develop a new paradigm of “planetary thinking.” First an overview of the history of “area studies” will be given from the start in the U.S. during the Second World War in response to the geostrategic imperative for America to know its new geopolitical responsibilities in a world divided by war. This security imperativemorphed into the postwar requisite to develop a counterhegemonic strategy against soviet communism in the hot spot parts of Asia, Latin American, and later Africa. The latter military‐oriented strategy was added to with research into development and modernization in the third-world through to the boundary displacement of areas studies at the end of the Cold War into the current era of globalization. At this very historical moment of transition a new rationale for area studies emerged in the form of a geoeconomic imperative – both in the U.S. and, with a different gloss, in South Korea in the late 1990s. Second, on the basis of this historical apercu, the argument will be proposed that, given the problem of global warming and the issue‐area of global inequality lurking behind the UnitedNation’s Millennium Development Goals, a pressing contemporary task for philosophy is to make a critical contribution to developing a new planetary perspective for area studies informed by a constitutive philosophical anthropology attendant to the species being of human beings.

Traditional Russian ideas concerning fairness, justice and rights are directly connected with state-paternalistic moods in the society. In many respects they have caused specificity and reforming rates of the country. These ideas are based on religious and historical distinctive features. Ruling power is the main source regulating adoption of fair decisions. One of the supposed conditions of civil society creation is the formation of idea of civil society as a fair society capable to generate a community of socially responsible persons.

Universal laws which are shown not only in a material world, but also in spiritual, represent a crystal lattice of knowledge. This base lattice is a basis for more specific and various phenomena of our life. Various sciences study the different sides of our life. However, there are common laws for all sciences, shown both in physics, and in biology; both in chemistry, and in economy; both in psychology, and in genetics.

Social Information Science (or Social Informatics) is a new and interdiscipline branch subject in China. This paper probe the emergence and the research outline of social information science. 1. The proposal of the social information science. We set up the research from an extension from the theoretical informatics to the concrete informatics; a internal bond of integrating various subjects in humane and social sciences; an intersection and mutual permeation between the social science and the natural science; a the intersection and interaction among humane and social sciences, modern information science and information technology; a strengthening to the research into Social Epistemology. Ⅱ. On the concept of social information. Social information directly is different with selfexistent and natural information, and more related to human’s autonomous creative activities, to society’s culture inheritance, to social value, to human’s spiritual interaction and to human’s emotions. Ⅲ.On the theoretical orientation of the social information science. Social Information Science is a concrete branch of informatics, a generation of sub-disciplines of social information, a kind of traversing and comprehensive research on individual social science from the angle of information, a kind of exchange and interaction between social theoretical research and the modern information technology. Ⅳ. The research focus of the social information science. The paper lists 10 main focus in the research of social information science. Ⅴ.The system and frame of the social information science. In general, there should be four levels of researches if the social information science is to be viewed as a relatively independent subject: the philosophical level, the scientific theoretical level, concrete apply level, social information technology and methods.

Russian idea as philosophy of longing future of Russia was formed by humanists in opposition to real state of life in the country. Beginning from Moscow kingdom in Russia there were often oppression, injustice, loutishness, bribery, cultural backwardness, lack of education. The number of civilized, highly educated, high-moral people was very narrow. But the part they played in the history was extremely great; they were always the social vanguard of our motherland. They themselves brought really human properties for their country, which would be developed later and would be discovered in the lives of majority of the population of our country. What is really human or simply human in opposition to inhuman in a person? Everything is very simple. Good will in people appears when they begin to follow the commandments: don’t kill, don’t tempt, don’t steal, don’t use foul language etc. And vice versa, if a person breaks these rules, he loses his humanity. Its essence is simple; the main idea is that it is important for the highest moral principles to become the attribute of life for the majority of people in the country, just like mobile phone or computer became an integral part of people’s life today. Today Russian idea becomes global one. One cannot use other people for achieving their goals. It means that while different nations and states treat each other cautiously and suspiciously, with secret desire to gain something by deception, to acquire something fraudulently, to make a fortune by fraud, none of global problems will be solved positively.

The subject of the action and the politician, introduces to us necessarily in the consideration of the problem of the power. Arendt talks about the term to be able, like the human capacity to act of arranged way. For our author, the power never belongs to an individual but to a group of individuals and continues existing while the group stays united. In other words, a man must be able when he acts in name of a group of people; without the consent of the group, the person lets have to be able. The man like individual, by itself, lacks only being able has power. We shared this notion of being able totally, considering to Arendt like one of the authors who better have analyzed it distinguishing it of the force (or violence), giving of him a definition us that ejemplariza resulting his “ontologic status” as makes specific of the voluntary organization of individualities, and founding it on basic the human condition of the plurality. Arendt understands clearly that to the power she only can oppose to it him the force or violence, but this one cannot really replace it: the violence is not for her to be able, but destructive of being able: “But the violence is able well to destroy to the power, never can become its substitute. From it is the frequent political combination of force and deficiency of being able there.”

The paper deals with the problem of the social construction of the Self in socio-phenomenological perspective. I am trying to explore the idea, that the shortcomings of the so-called classical Self-models can be clearly explicit in the light of socio-phenomenological approach. Heuristic power of transcendentally phenomenological conception of the Ego and Alter Ego is examined as well as its further development in the framework of phenomenological tradition in the social sciences. Turning to postmodern tradition in the social thinking, I am trying to argue, that significance of phenomenological approach to the problem of the social construction of the Self consists in the fact, that it mediates “classic” Self-theories in European social thinking and further developed radical forms of cognitive constructivism which paves the way to postmodern deconstruction.

哲学来自人类的思维活动，社会活动，经长期的实践、积累、总 结而成的一门科学知识，因此社会科学与哲学二者是紧密相关的。人类 的社会活动，从原始社会发展至今已经有几千年的历史，漫长的社会发 展史，体现了社会发展的过程是循着社会发展的规律向前逐渐发展的， 因此，寻找和认识社会发展规律就成了哲学家努力的方向。