One of the features of the present stage of social dynamics is the emphasis on integrated scenarios of global development, and focus on such features of modern economic and social life, as transnationalization, hybridization, and the synthesis of its cultural programs. These trends of world development most clearly manifest themselves in the phenomenon of globalization, which is often estimated as the most constructive and real program of contemporary social dynamics. However, globalization as an objective process and a theoretical construct is usually based on empirical generalizations of various social facts through methodology of phenomenalism. In this article, the author offers another methodological research strategy that allows for a comprehen-sive analysis of globalization through the categorial-methodological reconstruction of its essence and functional characteristics. While globalization is interpreted as a complex superposition of its following dimensions: economic, political, institutional, socio-anthropological and socio-cultural. This approach allows us to prove the thesis that without proper philosophical interpretation of globalization is not possible to reveal its real nature, not associated with the assertion the consumption values and ideology of consumerism, but with the ideals of individual freedom and civil society.

Study of globalization in the context of technogenic (industrial and post-industrial) social development and establishment of information-technogenic era provides an understanding of the integrative mechanism of interaction between society, technosphere and biosphere. Qualitatively new, scientific and technological forces of production were created during the Industrial Revolution (XVIII-XIX centuries) and then the construction of the technosphere (artificial environment) began. Artificial processes were initially concentrated in the technogenic societies who were the members of the global industrial and technogenic zone. From the middle of the 20th century technogenic processes began to expand beyond this zone and involve traditional societies in technogenesis. The links in a single global distribution mechanism of technogenic processes began to form the technosphere. Technogenic social-biospheric processes involve the development of technology and biotech change of the biosphere organisms. Technogenic social-biospheric globalization encompasses the processes of global technocratic rationalization of societies, technosphere and biosphere (which loses its functions). Mankind destroys world biosphere and expands technosphere. These processes of integration generate global technogenic evolution of life on Earth, change the nature of evolution of life from natural to artificial, and replace information processes of biosphere to information of technosphere. Global technogenic world is created in today’s information-technogenic era.

Эволюция государственности стран ныне определяется как закономерностями внутреннего развития, так и факторами глобального порядка. Глобальные факторы являются функцией современной глобализации как системного процесса, конструктивно или деструктивно влияющей на внутригосударственные процессы. При доминирующих ныне деструктивных факторах их конструктивное содержание ускоряет реализацию общечеловеческих ценностей. Эти взаимосвязи, обладая общими чертами, воплощаются в различных странах по-разному. Общим глобальным фактором является растущее единение жизнедеятельности человечества, инструментами которого выступают глобальные процессы в разных сферах. Ведущими среди них являются политические, военные, финансово-экономические, информационные, экологические факторы. Различия взаимосвязей состоят в том, что из-за объективно-субъективного характера глобализации развитые страны формируют и используют глобальные факторы с выгодой для себя, а слаборазвитые – “потребляют” их деструктивные последствия. “Стрижка всех под одну гребенку” насаждает западный образ жизни и ценности. Монополия на глобализацию порождает застойные явления в мировом развитии, тормозит общественный прогресс. Необходимо, чтобы глобализация “обслуживала” не только “золотой миллиард”, но и все человечество. Для этого нужно внедрять всемирное демократическое управление глобальными процессами под эгидой, со стороны и от имени всего мирового сообщества.

Современная ситуация на нашей планете действительно характеризуется процессами модернизации и глобализации. Эти процессы не могут не влиять на государственные образования, которые преимущественно являются национальными государствами, а значит – и на национально-государственную власть. Этому и посвящается настоящий доклад.

Философия ХХI века в новых сложных условиях глобализирующегося мира уже констатировала наметившиеся интер- и кросскультурные тенденции в своем развитии. Суть в том, что как в западной, так в восточной философских традициях, являющихся основаниями соответствующих культур и цивилизаций, а, значит, и соответствующих систем ценностей, типов мировоззрения, существует сложившееся тысячелетия назад концептуальное ядро, имеющее общий универсальный характер. С другой стороны, в жизни как Востока, так и Запада, в социально-культурной и политической практиках существуют и возникают острые проблемы, указывающие на внутренние противоречия, несовершенства и необходимость изменений и нового современного содержания каждой системы ценностей как Востока, так и Запада Современная философия, философская компаративистика и социальная философия, вычленяя то общее, что имеется в духовных истоках разных культур и цивилизаций, и то частное, что и сегодня для них принципиально ценно, приоткрывает пути от конфликта к взаимопониманию, конструктивному диалогу, а в будущем и к гармоничному взаимодействию.

В докладе анализируется причины и сущность терроризма, возникшего в период глобализации, основные подходы к его научному изучению. Дается критика сведения всех форм борьбы c терроризм только к силовым. Показано множество источников неудовлетворенности, ведущих к терроризму – несогласие с модернизацией, отнесение себя к цивилизации, которая ущемлена, психологические черты – фанатизм, склонность к экстремизму и характерное для глобализации ослабление роли государств.

Сложность утверждения коэволюции общества и природы обусловлена, во-первых, несовпадением скорости естественной и социальной эволюции, их разнонаправленностью, во-вторых, тем, что общественное сознание и индивидуальное сознание большинства людей консервативно и не спешит признать необходимость такой коэволюции. В-третьих, общество и каждый человек не являются однозначно социальными системами, а представляют собой сложное диалектическое единство естественной и социальной сторон с выраженным, но не абсолютным господством социального начала. Поэтому коэволюция общества и биосферы возможна только при существовании коэволюции естественного и социального внутри общества. Социальное является продуктом природы, результатом самосовершенствования таких свойств естественных образований, как адаптация, передача и переработка информации. Поэтому социальное – явление родственное естественному. И в то же время социальное качественно противостоит естественному, так как подрывает полное господство одного из фундаментальных его свойств – стихийность, заменив её частичной осознанностью. Условием существования общества является господство социального начала, которое обеспечивается в процессе непрерывного снятия естественного содержания своих природных предпосылок. При этом снятие никогда не бывает абсолютным. Наиболее сложным является подчинение социальным отдельного индивида, что осуществляется при помощи суггестии в процессе социализации.

В докладе рассмотрены основные исторические этапы становления философии истории как важнейшего раздела философской науки, начиная с эпохи Античности и заканчивая ХХ веком. Обращено внимание на причины, вызывающие у исследователей затруднения в процессе постижения человеческой истории. Дана характеристика некоторых проблем, возникших в постсоветской философской науке, связанных с определением дисциплинарного статуса социальной философии, ее предмета и проблемного поля. Социальная философия, пришедшая на смену историческому материализму, трактуется как составная часть философии, которая представляет собой предельно общую теорию исторического процесса, исследует сущность, направленность, движущие силы, закономерности и методы его познания, т.е. как философия истории.

The most important concept of philosophy of history is con-sidered in connection with the contribution made by Karl Kantor, a well-known Russian philosopher, into solving the problem in his book titled “A Double Spiral of History. Historiosophia of Projectism” (M.: 2002). Three revolutions of spirit which occurred in the history of society correspond to three paradigmatic projects of history. The 1st revolution of spirit was the phenomenon of Christ and the first project of history became Christianity. The 2nd revolution of spirit was Renaissance and the second project of histo-ry was an aesthetical art project. The third revolution of spirit was K. Marx and his scientific project of history which synthesizes, absorbs the religious and the aesthetical projects. The issue of an uncompromising, antagonistic struggle between history and sociocultural evolution is also discussed. The revolution of spirit strives for radical transformation of socium which resists transformation and thus leads to a historical deadlock. A way out of the dead-lock is inevitably connected with the beginning of a new revolution of spirit. The prospects of revolution of spirit continuing in contemporary world in-cluding Russia are also outlined.

This paper examines the dispositional approach to the language introduced by the W. V. O. Quine. The author consideres the naturalistic understanding of the meaning and criticism of “mentalistic theory of ideas”. Dispositional approach to the language is characterized by the fact that: first, language statements are understood as a verbal reaction to the current stimulations or to situations, which are only potentially; second, stimulus meaning is subject’s detailed disposition to agree or disagree with the sentence in response to the stimulation. It is said that Quine’s ideas of ontological relativity, indeterminacy of translation and reference associated with dispositional approach to the language.

Современный миф является неотъемлемой частью коммуникативного и познавательного процессов. Современная культурная ситуация, характеризуемая как “постмодерн” породила феномен “посттеоретического мышления”, обнаружив ограниченность теорий и их влияние на образ мира. Миф как форма целостного мировосприятия есть средство защиты человеческого разума от распада на отдельные теоретические версии, в конечном счете, от социальной шизофрении.

This paper is an attempt to identify the foundations and sources of risk environment, describe the ontological, anthropological sources of risk in the sphere of Law. Definitions of forms of risk that occur in sphere of Law are introduced. On the basis of the conflict between order and self-organization (the ontological conflict) an attempt is made to suggest a brief philosophical definition of risk environment. The anthropological source of risk is described, the incompleteness of human nature, and the desire for recognition. The ontological system echoes the axiological characterization of Erich Fromm’s and V. B. Ustyantsev’s mode of existence.

Logic as a phenomenon of science has been historically denoted by the set of close synonym terms – “canon”, “dialectics”, “epagoge”, “maieutics”, “synagoge”, “analytics”, “epilogizmos”, “organon”, “logic” – while the word “logic” is only a homonym. Since, in relation to logic itself, the logical ideal of unambiguity in natural language is not achievable, the limitations of logical science, imposed by it primarily upon itself, are always important. Especially this concerns the use of the terms “formal logic” and “non-classical logic”, as well a broad understanding of logic that makes it equivalent to (and not only) thinking as such. The paradigm of modern post-nonclassical rationality suggests that logic should be considered responsible for the appearance of non-classical thinking and non-classical science. Thus, rationality even in science, acquires an almost exclusively praxeological nuance. As a consequence, the basic trends of modern science – interdisciplinarity, synergy, syncretism – and the reduction of rationality to pragmatics lead to the abandonment of the undelying principles of rational thinking, the essence of which lies in differentiating analytics, and sometimes – even to the abandonment of thinking as such. This gives rise to a paradoxical situation: the rationality of science, in fact, becomes the negation of the rationalist approach and the rationalistic thinking, which initially determined the nature of scientific knowledge, not only ceases to be the main value of science, but is no more included among its essential features.

In standard logical definition of the proof the concept of truth is used. To prove some thesis – means logically to bring it out of other true judgments. But there are the statements which haven’t been connected with truth, not having a truth conditional assessment: these are questions, requests, councils, promises, estimates, etc. It is obvious that, operating with them, we need also to be logical and evidential. Thus, there is a question of expansion of concept of the proof, that is of creation of wider model of the argument. Logical modeling of the argument generates a set of its models in which it is reproduced by means of logical systems: formal and semi-formal. Problem of logical modeling is creation of formally correct system of dependences between arguments and the thesis. It is also necessary to consider and reproduce its pragmatical aspects in model and argument rules: orientation to the addressee, providing acceptability and clearness of arguments and conclusion procedure. But there is also one more moment – social – which we also have to consider at a choice of model of the argument. The changes happening in society, find close connection of language with forms of life, human existence. This circumstance caused increasing interest to the argument, as forms of human rationality, the critical thinking capable to an independent and free reasoning, a way of research of mistakes and delusions, illusions and conscious manipulations, justification of own views, the points of view and ability to convince of them others.

Theories which born during interior development of mathematics later obtain empirical interpretation and become a part of applied science. The reasons for this are still not clear, although many mathematicians and philosophers (E. Wigner, M. Steiner, R. Hersh and others) put forward their hypotheses. We believe that solution the problem should involve investigation of mathematics as a sort of evolving system. Two systems may be subordinated; that is, if the first one is a primary and fundamental one, then the other one is secondary and adjusted to the first. We propose that substantial sciences are primary and formal sciences are secondary. There are reasons to think that mathematics in its interior development has intention to physics. Secondary system may have changes of two sorts: those which are requested by the primary system, and those which are free of the requests of the primary system. Analyzing biological systems we see that interior changes of the system, which are not caused by its current needs, are determined by its further purposes. Each living system carries a “model of future” in itself, and it tends to this future by its free changes. We think that the living systems development logic may be transferred to conceptual systems, also. If we consider mathematics as a conceptual system which is secondary in relation to physics, then we receive a natural explanation of the possibility of mathematical anticipation.

Применение математики в механике, астрономии, физике, биологии, социологии, психологии и в других областях научного знания, способствовало проникновению в научный аппарат указанных областей знания таких понятий, как число, функция, производная, дифференциал, интеграл, структура, система и т.д.. Математизация процесса научного знания становится определяющим фактором того, что теория той или иной сферы научной сферы может называться научной. В процессе математизации научного знания должны соблюдаться необходимые условия, как в содержательной теории, так и в выбранных математических методах. Они отражают реальность и тем придавать высокую точность предсказанию и описанию процессов.

The features of development of the subject-matter of mathematics can be viewed from the standpoint of the study of mathematics as objectification in Marx’s sense – as a relatively independently self-reproduced sphere of activity. For an explication of this development it is necessary to define concepts of “world”, “object”, “subject-matter”, “subject-actor”, “reality”, “structure”, “model”, “objectification”, “ontology”. In the process of objectification of the domain of objects of mathematics takes place a transformation of forms of existence and creation of new ontologies, with respect to new types of realities. The development of mathematics as a sphere of human activity necessarily contains subjectification (reproduction of a type of subject-actor as necessary substructure of every social objectification). The results of mathematical activity are fixed as objects and reproduced in the intersubjective, objectivized domain of mathematics, because the subject-actor itself is practically incorporated into the structure of the world as an object. Mathematics as practically realizable objectification of knowledge is modelling of ontologies. The immediate subject-matter of mathematics is the (realized in representation) manifold of abstract structures of subject-actor, whereas the mediated object of mathematics is the manifold of object structures of the world.

In this paper the modern scientific cognitive programs are analyzed. The article discusses the possibility of building an information and synergetic model of mind. The author introduces a principle of ontological reality of information – primary information in relation to material and energetic (or physical) reality and reality of meanings (or ideal reality). The author suggests a new approach to understanding an anthropic principle and interpretation of a philosophical category “mind-consciousness” as a concept of information reality theory. The consciousness is a fractal of an objective information reality with the certain relationships of cause and effect (so-called information, or mental causality). Physics and metaphysics synthesis is possible at the approach to mind as to certain level of the information reality including a phenomenon of a life. The principle of an ontological reality of the information – primacy of the information in relation to a reality substance-power (physical) and realities semantic (ideal) is essential. On the basis of this principle construction of new model of consciousness, using a mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics (G. Everett, R. Penrouz, V. L. Ginzburg, M. B. Mensky) looks very possible.

There are major global challenges: the technogenic pollution of the globe, the climate change, the rising of the sea level, the decrease of resources, primarily oil, and others. The rapidity of the subsequent negative changes requires fast, cardinal and principally innovative approaches to the formation of urban life. Most modern cities have become major pollutants of the biosphere and, thereby, entail degradation of population. This paper examines the principles and methodology of urban transformation in biosphere, which are compatible to human development. We suggest a hierarchy of methodological principles of urban management, which embraces all issues from the interaction with the biosphere up to the creation of conditions for favorable, comfortable and safe life.

Geological knowledge is needed for a comprehensive approach in describing their objects. Ancient Greek philosophers noticed that layers contain shells, similar to the ones that are stay at the shore of the sea, but raised high in the mountains. And it is required a comprehensive response, which couldn’t do one branch of scientific knowledge, to explain this phenomenon. So the logic of Geology may not be reflected logic of physics or chemistry. Therefore the methodology of geological knowledge of nature should be reflected with holistic approach. Heterogeneity of the matter of the Universe, which date back to the fundamental (Planck’s) length and have the dimension lf *ene. So heterogeneity of the Earth is stacked in sizes from 10-8 cm (the radius of the Atom) to 1010-1011 cm (dimensions of the planet). And the geological objects are characterized by the data of different levels of organization of a substance. As a result any geological object should be described in its integrity and uniqueness due to the holistic nature of their. Geology is a complex of Sciences and has its own methodology of interdisciplinary approach. Therefore, with full right, we can mention the geological knowledge of science, based on the post-non-classical paradigm.