In his works for a few decades since the 1960s, Theodore Roszak, professor of California State University, has made an emphatic call to rethink all the fundamental objectives and values of the techno-scientific civilization and consumer society. His name became famous when he published his book “The Making of a Counterculture. Reflections on the Technotronic Society and Its Youthful Opposition” (New York, 1968), supporting the oppositional movement of the young Americans which he named counterculture. Theodore Roszak came to the conclusion that the consumer society did not bring happiness to all people, that it could rapidly bring mankind to an environmental disaster, and that it is a blind alley in terms of social development.

Declaration of independence became a reference point of a new historical epoch - epoch of free, sovereign development of Uzbekistan. Our country from first days of independent development, under direction of President I.A. Karimov, has headed for refusal of a heritage of a command control system, having started to construction of bases of a democratic legal society with the socially-focused market economy. For achievement of these purposes own model of updating and progress which essential features are the selective approach to experience of the developed countries and the account of specificity and features of centuries-oldevolution of national statehood is involved. In Republic of Uzbekistan process of democratization and modernization of a society became stage-by-stage, with a stress on maintenance of deep understanding of an essence of democracy, in view of sociopolitical traditions and features of national mentality. The heritage of sociopolitical culture of our society has acted original “Means”. By means of which modern values and principles of democracy were brought home to people, their perception and understanding was facilitated. Psychological features of national character, such as tolerance, the aggravated feeling of validity, equality before the law, etc. were especially effectively used. It is known, that the basic directions of democratic transformations and formation of a civil society are defined depending on real needs and opportunities of their realization. We have a precise comprehension of that the major condition of formation of a democratic society is strengthening a role and value in a life of a society of not state and public institutes. In Uzbekistan this process goes by practical realization of the concept “From the strong state - to a strong society”. It is a question of stage-by-stage and gradual reduction of a role of the state structures in the decision of social and economic questions and about transfers of these functions to public organizations. Gradually we go to that participation of the state in economic sphere and a field of activity of managing structures, first of all, a private sector - decreases. In parallel the problem of creation of favorable conditions for realization of publiccontrol on the basis of corresponding motivation - public interests is solved.

Social science, as a social and intellectual institution, inherent in modernity, as well as the modern social systems and orders, is the prerequisite and manifestation of the reflexivity in the modern world. There are, however, some fundamental problems in modern social science, in terms of its specialized system and methodological paradigms and conceptions.

Philosophy of science is the object of metaphilosophical investigations. Metaphilosophy is the philosophy of philosophy. Philosophy is an archetypical thinking of being or an experience-of-being. History of Greek-European tradition of philosophy has three archetypes of thinking: objectivity, subjectivity, and inter-subjectivity. They are three archetypical contexts of interpretations of the concept of a philosophy of science too. Is philosophy of science part of philosophy? Is philosophy ofscience part of epistemology? What are methods of philosophy of science? These questions are the topics of metaphilosophy. The topic of a scientific fact is a focal point of contemporary epistemology and philosophy of science. Is a scientific fact a fallible knowledge? The nature of a scientific fact is discussed in keeping with to the opposition of fallibilism and infallibilism. If fallibilism is universal quality of knowledge then there is a problem: is a scientific fact a fallible knowledge too? We are understanding and make clear the nature of a scientific fact by correlation of facts with: (1) data and evidence; (2) languages and theories; (3) methods of empirical investigations; (4) values, norms, and conventions of scientific investigations. Philosophy of science communicates with philosophy ofeconomics as the contemporary branch of philosophy. Its problems arise from the relationship of philosophy and philosophy of science with economics and practice.

There has been recently a substantial rise of relativism in the epistemology of social science. It has seriously discredited normative function of the epistemology and changed the context of epistemological discussion. Some hold that the problem of relativism cannot be solved by scientific means, because it ultimately depends on personal beliefs. However, present paper shows that there are different scientific strategies of coping with relativism. The key argument is that the epistemological stance towards relativism is closely related to the conceptualization of sense in general social theory. Some prominent examples of socialtheorizing are presented to support this point and demonstrate that different conceptualizations of sense are possible, and that these are connected to the approach to social-scientific cognition. Relationship between epistemological grounds and conceptualization of sense in work of Scheler, Weber, Bourdieu, Luhmann is briefly analyzed. The conclusion is drawn that future exploration of epistemological problems in social sciences may benefit from rethinking and refining the concept of sense.

There is a long tradition in the philosophy of the social sciences that emphasizes the meaningfulness of human action. This tradition doubts or even negates the possibility of causal explanations of human action precisely on the basis that human actions have meaning. This paper provides an argument in favour of methodological naturalism in the social sciences. It grants the main argument of the Interpretivists, i.e. that human actions are meaningful, but it shows how a transformation of a “nexus of meaning” into a “causal nexus” can take place, proposing the “successful transformation argument”. Based on previous work presented in my Naturalistic Hermeneutics, Cambridge University Press, 2005 the paper discusses four approaches that describe the “nexus of meaning” connected with a human action based on the motives, the intentions, the reasons, and the rationality of the action respectively. From the standpoint of eachapproach a causal nexus can arise, namely, if the respective motives, intentions, reasons, or the human rationality that are manifest in the different nexuses of meaning exhibit certain invariances. These approaches can be formulated as theories, which explain human action every time that the nexuses of meaning – described with the diverse conceptual apparatuses – can be transformed into causal nexuses. It is shown that explanations based on motives, intentions, reasons, or rationality are possible, as are explanations of human action based on, at least in principle, an unlimited number of other theories.

The conceptual history of democracy suggests that the overwhelming success of the concept is most of all due to its ability to subsume very different historical ideas and realities under the same semantics. Moreover, the historical evolution of the term is repugnant to an unequivocal definition because it contains some very significant paradoxa, aporias and contradictions. This obviously opens the concept of democracy to some further discussions about the conceivable legitimacy of Non-Western social and political systems. On the other hand, this does not mean that there is no core belief or best interpretation of democracyexisting at all. The contestability of the political concept does not prevent us from drawing normative conclusions from social and historical research but rather demands the reflection of the normative content each definition of democracy includes. Hence tracing the different forms the term took on over times and conceding the preliminary character of modern liberal democracy should not be confused with the philosophical duty to identify the concept’s preparatory or incomplete versions. The conceptual history of democracy is still in progress.

A well-known Hungarian philosopher, politician, literary and art theorist Georg Lukacs was a notable figure of philosophical thought in XX century. Although he was interested in many problems philosophical-aesthetical matter is the main one in all his works. The problem of human alienation from social forms is outlined in his numerous literary, philosophical, aesthetical works of pre- and post- Marxian periods. The concept of philosophical-aesthetical grounds for overcoming human alienation has been developed in his art from romantic feeling of existential tragedy through the utopian expectancy of “aesthetic ideal” realization to the reliance on being conscious of individual blood nature through dialectic penetration of subjectivity and objectivity in the process of aesthetical perception. Thus he has the unaltered point of view that the art is a particular opposed to alien human nature sphere of being which allows taking away the dual principle of alien forms of human being and its essence.

One conjecture is presented in this paper, which assumes that human societies might be understood as two measurable dynamic states.

Globalization is a natural process. It has a number of advantages & disadvantages, causes many questions and problems, which can hardly sometimes be solved by countries independently. These problems can only be solved by the world community. One of these problems is to maintain the concrete communities identity. Is it possible to keep the unique culture of different ethnos, language, traditions in the globalizing world? Or as some researchers consider, there is a tendency to the formation of the so called super ethnos? In such conditions tolerance takes on special significance as a certain means of activity, as social behavior model, as a norm of behavior for each member of the society. Tolerance as a behavior model on one hand should be worked out by a state legislative body, from the other it should be a norm of behavior for each member of the society. The basis of the tolerant behavior is the principle of mutual understanding.It can be considered to be a moral imperative for the resolution of conflict situations. The relevance & importance of tolerance & creating tolerant relations is a characteristic feature of the democratic personality.

В статье ставится вопрос о необходимости философского осмысления новых явлений в эволюции общества и Универсума в связи с начавшимся глобальным переходом жизни на Земле. Как показывает анализ, под воздействием техногенного общественного развития происходит нарастающее разрушение биосферы, человека и биосферной жизни, на смену земной естественной, биосферной метасистеме жизни приходит искусственная, техносоциоприродная. Эта формирующаяся новая целостность включает в себя глобализирующийся метасоциум (техногенный социум), техносферу, трансформированные на основе искусственного отбора и биотехнологий живые организмы, материальную и духовнуюкультуру, многогранный духовный мир человека, биологически обедненное географическое земное пространство, сохранившиеся элементы биосферы. Такому развитию событий на планете должна противостоять философия, формируя основные принципы и рекомендации по сохранению биосферной жизни и человека, разрабатывая далее и внедряя элементы устойчивого развития общества и биосферы в соответствии с решениями Конференции ООН по окружающей среде и развитию (1992 г.) осуществляя и другие разумные мероприятия.

In this paper I expose the hermeneutic turn in Popperian philosophy of science. It is a milestone in the search of scientific rationality because permit us explain and understand both the method of deductive test of theories and the growth of knowledge. Especially, incorporating hermeneutics parameters, build up from Popper’s point of view, like situational logic, supported on the third world theory and the scientific tradition theory, open a door to another form of understand the scientific rationality. It expands the ingenuous model of falsification towards the question of increase of knowledge, which consists on pose problems, putforwards tentative theories, evaluate error elimination, and generate new problems. One of the outcomes leads us to replant our conception of Popper’s philosophy of science close from an hermeneutic point of view.

In article the social-philosophical concept of technogenic societies developed by the author is submitted. The essence of the technogenic society consists in the basic change of the public productive forces which have expressed in sharp increase of value of scientific and technical productive forces that is caused by transition to industrial, and to a scientific-technological way of manufacture of a public life and accordingly - to an industrial and postindustrial society. Substantial characteristics of the technogenic society are defined also by influence of scientifictechnological, technical and technosphere factors on all course of a planetary life, on gradual replacement of biospheric forms of a terrestrial life postbiospheric, artificial. Technogenic (economic, scientific, technological) rationality promotes not only to improvement of conditions of ability to live of humanity, but also strengthens the tendency of global degradation of biosphere and the person, to the statement on a planet of an artificial life.

Social cognition can be based on two contrary axioms that answer the question of whether the society can provide for the universal survival of all of its members. Negative answer (relativist model of society) is more productive methodologically. The key notion here is the technosocial formula of society, the physical meaning of which is that the society as an aggregate of people needs bigger vital space than it can create. The growth of man in nature was the result not only of the supplanting of other species but also of the intraspecific struggle which became the main factor of the development process. The criterion of social progress is reduced in the end to only one index – the ability of society’s survival and it doesn’t have any absolute value in space and time.

Being frequently used in philosophical discourse multi-semantic character of «utopia» concept arises a need to specify it's content and to study the phenomenon itself. In the process of defining utopia functions and it's unalienable elements it is reasonable to rely on the structural - functional analysis. But this approach supposes studying utopia in static state and doesn't let researching utopia's historical transformation. For researching utopia in dynamics structural- constructional approach can be applied. Methodological potential of this theory enables to review sociality as multiplicity of human individuals arranged by means of social order which has been developed by the individuals themselves. Utopia is a theoretical construct, a result of social reality critical reflection experienced by the utopia subject; an outcome of socially and historically based and personally determined ideal alternative society image construction presented in various forms and modifications, enabled to exert a reformative influence on various spheres of social life.

Sport has become a significant part of the contemporary society culture. There has been developed a system of sciences dealing with sports. Philosophy figures prominently among them and it deals with aesthetic problems of sport. The problem of the aesthetic of sport is really of great importance as; first of all, it creates new fields of aesthetic activity and exerts aesthetic influence upon millions of people. Secondly, sports exert profound influence upon modern architecture, design, performing and fine arts, fashion and lifestyle. Thirdly, sport has become one of important means of preservation and further development of traditions of national cultures and their aesthetic values. The development of sport is mainly determined by its aesthetic essence, therefore it is important to realize thespecific character of its content and avoid applying to it criteria of other kinds of aesthetic activity. The significance of the aesthetic aspect of sport is due to the fact that sport has contributed a lot to the development of human beings, their humanistic and aesthetic ideals, sensual image of a perfect man. The character of the contemporary society sport is complicated and controversial and therefore careful analysis of its content, of its structure and functions is necessary.

Beijing Olympic Games is a Globalization sports events, also is a great chance to show Chinese cultural heritage. Throughout the Western cultural. The Chinese cultural understanding has always stayed in "Orientalism" to the "Oriental fever" among the transition. How the Olympic Games as an opportunity to make the “Harmony Communication”？To achieve cultural heritage in China in the Context of Globalization be "reassessed." Further evaluation of role and significancein spreading about Chinese cultural Beijing Olympic Games.

The ancient world witnessed a meaningful transition in the conception of human thought and belief. What some have called the “discovery” of the mind can also be understood as a release from dependence on oracular wisdom and mythological explanation, made possible by the invention of more reliable and democratic methods for discovering and explaining truths. During roughly the same epoch, Hellenic sport distinguished itself by developing objective mechanisms for selecting single winners from varied pools of contestants. Is there a connection? Following the general thesis that sport is an expression of thehuman desire to know, this paper will explore the epistemological nature of the earliest forms Hellenic athletics. I begin by interpreting the funeral games depicted in Homer’s Iliad as an unbiased, publicly monitored means for settling questions of social honor. I then consider the ancient Olympic games, arguing that their religious foundations motivated a new focus on objective and reliable methods for selecting single winners who could be symbolically sacrificed to the god. In both manifestations, athletic games are used to objectively answer important questions about merit. Eventually, competitive methods of truth‐seeking would become commonplace in Western thought. By examining early the origins of Greek sport in this light, however, Olympia may be identified as a key source of epistemological testing methods, and sport itself may be characterized fundamentally as a search for knowledge.

Athletes in sport are not only physical beings but also spiritual beings. Sport is referred to sport as an issue of human self. What kind of inner self do athletes have in the context of modern sports? To consider the issue of self in sport, we focused on its two aspects, athletics and training. In conclusion, we proposed to combine individual training like Japanese shugyo influenced mainly by Zen philosophy with athletics developed in the West since the time of the Greeks. When these are separated, the self of an athlete is still incomplete, and it is hard to attain genuine excellence or achievement. An athlete in such a separate state ofmind possibly ends up using irrational force or power when relying on individual training. On the other hand, an athlete who focuses only on competitions will have a strong inclination to be affected by the media and commercialism, while having chances to be approved by others. It is hence essential to combine the two approaches. If we redefine playing sports as the phenomenon that comprehends both our self-reflection and our encounters with others, it will serve as an occasion of great significance for people living in today’s world.

The question I want to pursue here is one that I have lifted from Harry Frankfurt’s recent surprising best-selling book, On Bullshit, in which he asks why there is so much bullshit today in Western cultures like the U. S. The scope of Frankfurt’s charge was deliberately broad. It’s not just that people bullshit about how much money they make or how important their jobs are, but that public discourse about just any topic of consequence in American culture is filled with, one is even tempted to say consists of, such unseemly speech. Such is the case, I want to claim here, about public discourse about sport in the print and visual media, in everyday life, and even, as I will shortly comment upon, in so-called academic and civic forums. So I don’t think it is a stretch at all, nor do I believe Frankfurtwould regard it as such, to include sport among the topics about which bullshit abounds. He might, however, quibble with my claim that the preponderance of bullshit in and outside of sport circles has mainly to do with the incursion of the market into most of the social practices that people hold dear in our culture. This despite the fact that Frankfurt does recognize that one primary reason why bullshit dominates so much of our contemporary discourse is that people are frequently called upon to speak about things that exceed their grasp, their knowledge of the subject. What he seems not to appreciate in this regard, however, is that one especially important reason why people’s grasp of what they say and do leaves much to be desired is because more often than not it is market actors that are doing all the talking here, whether the topic be sports, or politics, or even science. And the reason they are doing all the talking is the same reason they are mostly responsible for what actually goes on in these disparate spheres, namely, they hold and control the purse strings. So I’m persuaded, more than Frankfurt apparently is, that it is because the money-changers dominate sports, as I have insinuated they dominate most everything else, that what gets said in and about sports is mostly bullshit. Convincing you that I’m right about this will be my aim today, and that’s no bullshit, I think.