Аннотация: The paper considers the specific lines of the ontology of Cornelius Castoriadis in a triple context of his thought: polemics with Heidegger and Ricoeur, but also the reception of Castoriadis' project of modernity by Habermas. The author aims to elucidate historical-philosophical meaning of these debates and receptions through the special problems of the philosophy of history: teleology, succession, determination, creation, innovation, re-production, memory and imagination. The author used hermeneutical and intertextual analyse as methods. The results of authors' work are as follows: 1) author showed that Castoriadis polemized with some cases of reception of Heidegger's thought, especially in regard of Ancient Greek civilization, 2) author showed the limits of Castoriadis' thought: his radical atheism, social monadism, refusal to think communication, 3) author showed also the advantages of Castoriadis' thought of history: his multiculturalism, his claim to restaure genuine philosophy and democracy, critics of determinism, scientism, cultural egoism.

Аннотация: The subject of this research is conditions for the creation of nontrivial classifications for the historical-philosophical analysis of the phenomenon of French “post-structuralism”. The author believes that the term “post-structuralism” is a historical-philosophical abstraction insofar that the researchers do not take into consideration a specificity of the thought of French philosophers in the space between modernism and classicism. The article also examines the instances when the “post-structuralists” (Foucault, Castoriadis) address the problem of classification and systematization of philosophical knowledge based on the attempt to classify sciences that has been carried out in French rationalism by Goblot and Meyerson. The research employs the historical-philosophical methods for rationalizing the project of “nontrivial” philosophical classification as a uniform intellectual process, although it is yet to be discerned and finalized. The novelty of this work consists in the fact that the author not only applied the methods of nontrivial classification developed in cognitive linguistics (Lakoff) and theoretical biology (Meien) to the historical-philosophical process, but made an attempt to demonstrate that the development of such heuristic methods is possible within the framework of the history of philosophy as a discipline. The author examined the “archaeological” analytics of biology of Foucault and the concept of social time in of Castoriadis.

Аннотация: The subject of this research is the historical-philosophical and polemical context of philosophical reasoning on the history of French philosopher of Greek descent Cornelius Castoriadis (1922-1997). The philosopher builds a complicated polemical model that vividly responses to all attempts to determines society, being, history, and a human. Even such prominent philosophers of the XX century, such as M. Heidegger, J. Habermas. And P. Ricoeur, who do not show prejudice attitude towards philosophical knowledge, become subjected to critical analysis. The scientific novelty consists in attracting the new to the Russian audience historical-philosophical material, as well as a distinct attempt to reproduce of such polemics and debated that took place within the French intellectual environment of the late XX century. However, the author did not pursue the task of historical and biobibliographical description; the emphasis was made on the so-called return to the origins of the philosophy of history, revival of philosophical reasoning on history based on the examined material, demonstration of the complicated, aporetic, heterogeneous and heuristic nature of relationship between philosophy, humanities and social disciplines. The conclusion is made that the work of Castoriadis mostly represents philosophical criticism of theoretical grounds of humanities and social disciplines, rather than a poststructuralist philosophy of history; but this criticism, studied in the context of philosophical thought, acquires an independent scientific meaning.

Аннотация: The subject of this research is the historical-philosophical and polemical context of the reasoning on history of the French philosopher of Greek descent Cornelius Castoriadis (1922-1997). The philosopher structures a complex polemical model that sharply responses to all attempts to determine society, being, history, and human. Even the recognized philosophical figures of the XX century, such as M. Heidegger, P. Ricoeur, J. Haberma, who have no biased attitude on philosophical knowledge, appear to be subject to critical analysis.  The author applied intertextual, hermeneutic and dialogical methods leaning on the texts of the aforementioned authors, as well as the data of modern critical literature. The scientific novelty consists in attraction of the relatively unknown to the Russian audience historical-philosophical material, and an attempt to reproduce the polemics and debates that were held in French intellectual environment of the late XX century. At the same time, the author did not follow the goals of historical and biobibliographical description, but rather return to the origins of the philosophy and history and revival of philosophical reasoning on history based on the researched material, demonstration of complicated, aporetic, heterogeneous and heuristic nature of the relation between philosophy, social disciplines and humanities. The author concludes that we cannot speak of the poststructuralist philosophy of history; the work of Castoriadis mostly represents philosophical criticism of theoretical grounds of social disciplines and humanities, although in the context of philosophical thought, it acquires an independent scientific meaning. The author ubderlines that Castoriadis polemicized Heidegger's thought, especially in regard of Ancient Greek civilization; the limits of Castoriadis' thought, such as radical atheism, social monadism, refusal to think communication; the advantages of Castoriadis' thought of history, his multiculturalism, his claim to restore genuine philosophy and democracy, criticism of determinism, scientism, cultural egoism.

Аннотация: The subject of this research is the philosophical heritage of the prominent Greek-French philosopher, economist, and psychoanalyst Cornelius Castoriadis (1922-1997). The author gives particular attention to the plots of his works related to the problem of such philosophical interpretation of the historical process, in which context a human does not manifest as an alienated subject, but rather a conscious, creative being. Along the way, the philosopher faces Marxism, Sartre’s existentialism, and structuralism of Lévi-Strauss, subjecting them to critical analysis and defending similar principles, kindred to the Greek democratic traditions. Hi critically repels scientism, naturalism, individualism, Eurocentrism, functionalism, positivism and determinism, which in his opinion, obscure the true content of all three methods. The author explored a number of theses and texts of Castoriadis, in comparison with the texts of some representatives of Marxism (Plekhanov, Lenin), existentialism (Sartre), and structuralism (Lévi-Strauss, Althusser, Foucault). Leaning on the study of the evolution of French postwar thought, the author draws the independent conclusions on Castoriadis’ methodology. The scientific novelty consists in the attempt to portray Castoriadis as a unique reformer of the philosophy of history. The philosopher manifests not only as a consecutive critic of Marxism, existentialism and structuralism, but also as an independent thinker, who revived the dwindling interest towards the philosophy of history. It is underlined that the works of Castoriadis represent a cycle of studies on the philosophy of history; and in the center of the living historical process is collective creativity, the “magma” of social reality and social imaginary.

Аннотация: The subject of this research is the social heritage of the prominent French philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis (1922-1997). The authors gives special attention to the plots of his works that are referred to the problem of such philosophical interpretation of the historical process, in which a human would not resemble an alienated subject, but rather a conscious, creative being. On this path, the philosopher meets Marxism, existentialism of Sartre, and structuralism of Lévi-Strauss, which he critically comprehends, upholding his kindred principles related to the Greek democratic traditions. He critically rejected scientism, naturalism, individualism, Eurocentrism, functionalism, positivism and determining, which in his opinion, eclipse the true content of all of the three methodologies. The author reviews a number of theses and text of Castoriadis, comparing with the text of some representatives of Marxism (Lenin, Plekhanov), existentialism (Sartre), and structuralism (Lévi-Strauss, Foucault, Althusser). The scientific novelty consists in the attempt to present Castoriadis as a so-called reformer of the philosophy of history. He configures not only as a successive critic of Marxism, existentialism and structuralism, but also as an independent thinker who revived the fading interest to the philosophy of history. The main conclusion is defined by the fact that the works of Castoriadis represents a cycle of studies on the philosophy of history, and in the center of the live historical process is a creative group of people a monolith of the “magma” of social reality and social ideality.

Аннотация: Предметом исследования авторов выступает влияние марксизма на интерпретацию трудов Мишеля Фуко в работах Э. Балибара. По мнению авторов, база политической философии во Франции является синкретической и полидисциплинарной, её делом оказывается отвечать на острые вызовы времени в поле интеллектуально-научной деятельности. Поле исследования работы является по определению междисциплинарным, затрагивающим вопросы социальной философии и теории политики. Чтение работ Фуко через работы Маркса явилось одним из важнейших этапов философской карьеры Э. Балибара.
Авторы используют методы исследования принятые в социальной философии и политической философии: сравнительно-сопоставительный метод, гипотетико-дедуктивный метод, текстологический метод. Основная база исследования - текстологическая. Новизна работы связана с попыткой получения более объективного взгляда на эволюцию социальной и политической философии во Франции, чем принято думать в связи с оппозицией модерна-постмодерна.
Основываясь на рассуждениях Балибара, представленных в некоторых из его основных работ, мы можем сделать однозначный вывод: влияние идей Фуко на интерпретацию Балибаром трудов К. Маркса позволило Балибару перевести многие проблемы, рассматривавшиеся традиционным марксизмом в рамках экономическо-политического дискурса, в дискурс социально-этический. . Такой метод работы и позволяет Балибару нащупывать живую связь между Марксом и современностью, ставя под сомнение устоявшиеся штампы, как самого марксизма, так и популярного «антимарксизма».

Abstract: The subject of this research is the impact of Marxism upon the interpretation of the writings of Michel Foucault in the works of Etienne Balibar. The authors believe that the foundation of political philosophy in France is the syncretic and polydisciplinary; it answers the urgent challenges of time in the field on the intellectual-scientific activity. The research area is interdisciplinary by definition, touching on the questions of social philosophy and theory of politics. Reciting the works of M. Foucault through the works of K. Marx manifests as one of the paramount stages of philosophical career of E. Balibar. The scientific novelty is associated with an attempt to receive a more objective perspective to the evolution of social and political philosophy in France as it is common to believe due to the opposition between modernity and postmodernity. Based on the reasoning of E. Balibar, presented in some of his major works, the authors can draw an unambiguous conclusion: the influence of M. Foucault’s ideas upon E. Balibar’s interpretation of the works of K. Marx allowed Balibar to convert many of the issues viewed by the traditional Marxism in terms of the economic-political discourse into the socio-ethical discourse. Such method helped Balibar to feel a living connection between Marx and modernity, doubting the established stamps of Marxism itself, as well as the popular “anti-Marxism”.

Аннотация: Современные философы часто не просто обращаются к исследованиям античности, а сами находятся под «влиянием» философов классической древности. При этом возможны две стратегии: герменевтическая, то есть признающая фундаментальное значение античной цивилизации, раскрываемое через интерпретацию её ведущих текстов и структурно-антропологическая, то есть претендующая на раскрытие преемственности цивилизаций. Предметом нашего исследования оказывается, таким образом, раскрытие присутствия обеих стратегий в сравнении интерпретаций античной (древнегреческой) цивилизации у двух оригинальных философов ХХ века: Корнелиуса Касториадиса (1922-1997) и Мераба Мамардашвили (1930-1990). Основанием для их сравнения служит внимание греческо-французского и советско-грузинского мыслителя к основополагающим вопросам изучения древнегреческой цивилизации: переход от мифа к логосу, возникновение философии и демократических институтов, роль трагедии, религии, гражданской доблести и законов в самосознании и самоопределении древних греков. Нашей методологией является, прежде всего, сравнение проблем и методов обоих мыслителей и предметно-понятийный анализ их концептов в свете диалектики указанных двух стратегий. . Мы приходим к следующим результатам: 1) философия ХХ века в лице, в частности Касториадиса и Мамардашвили, отказывается видеть в античности наивный и созерцательный этап европейской цивилизации, обращаясь к древним как к самостоятельному источнику социального познания и онтологического вопрошания; 2) для обоих мыслителей невозможным оказывается анализировать лишь рациональный аспект античной философии, не принимая в расчёт мифологии и трагического миросозерцания древних греков, а также специфики их социума; 3) разбирая феномен «греческого чуда», Касториадис сосредоточен на коллективных символических механизмах появления древнегреческих демократических институтов, в то время как Мамардашвили интересует индивидуальный символизм древнегреческого философского мышления. Наш основной вывод состоит в том, что реконструкция древнегреческого мышления однозначно способствует формированию профессиональной и социокультурной идентичности современных интеллектуалов.

Abstract: Modern philosophers often not only refer to the classical studies, but also are impacted by the philosophers of Classical Antiquity. At the same time, the two strategies are possible: hermeneutic that recognizes the fundamental importance of classical civilization revealed through interpretation of its leading texts, and structural-anthropological that aspires to elucidate the succession of civilization. The subject of this research is examination of the presence of both strategies in comparison of interpretation of the classical (Ancient Greek) civilization in the works of two distinct philosophers of the XX century:  Cornelius Castoriadis (1922-1997) and Merab Mamardashvili (1930-1990). The basis for such comparison serves the attention of the Greek-Frencj and Soviet-Georgian thinkers to the fundamental questions of studying the Ancient Greek civilization: shift from myth to logos, emergence of philosophy and democratic institutions, role of tragedy, religion, and civil valor and laws of self-consciousness and self-determination of the Ancient Greeks. The following conclusions were made: 1) philosophy of the XX century, particularly Castoriadis and Mamardashvili, denies to see in Classical Antiquity a naïve and contemplative stage of European civilization, referring to the ancients as an independent source of social cognition and ontological inquiry; 2) for both thinkers is became impossible to analyze only the rational aspect of classical philosophy, not taking into account the mythology and tragic worldview of the Ancient Greeks, as well as the specificity of their society; 3) examining the phenomenon of “Greek miracle”, Castoriadis focuses on the collective symbolic mechanisms of the emergence of Ancient Greek democratic institutions, while Mamardashvili is interested in the individual symbolism of the Ancient Greek philosophical reasoning. The author underlines that the reconstruction of the Ancient Greek mentality unambiguously contributed to the formation of professional and sociocultural identity of the modern intellectuals.

Аннотация: Предметом работы является понятие эпистемы как концепт. В данной статье мы не ограничиваемся тем употреблением, которое сам автор понятия французский философ Мишель Фуко (1926-1984) даёт в своих работах «археологического» периода. Нашей задачей является показать, что понятие эпистемы выступало в работе "Слова и вещи" как базисное для построения социальной онтологии, которая так и не была создана философом. Поэтому мы рассматриваем понятие эпистемы как отдельный социально-философский концепт, получающий применение в философии истории и философии языка. Мы подчёркиваем, что однозначного понимания эвристической природы эпистемы у самого Фуко нет. Мы предлагаем рассматривать "эпистему" не как пост-метафизическую позитивность, а как путь к познанию социальных институтов, языка и истории в их комплексном развитии. С помощью методов историко-философского, философско-исторического, и лингвофилософского анализа мы пытаемся проникнуть в суть этого понятия как концепта, который мы сами понимаем, прежде всего, как базис «ненаписанной» самим Фуко онтологии социально-гуманитарного знания. Результатами работами выступают: 1) анализ эволюции понятия эпистемы в работах Фуко с точки зрения социально-философской эвристики, 2) историко-философское определение специфики понятия «эпистемы» в его эпистемологическом и социально-философском значении, 3) определение применимости этого понятия для философско-исторического и социально-философского анализа. Мы также показываем, что было бы поспешно и неправильно ассоциировать «археологию» Фуко исключительно с теорией дискурсов, а «эпистему» ставить в ряд попыток осмыслить научную рациональность исходя из данных истории наук. Мы предлагаем гипотезу, что эпистема может рассматриваться как эвристический концепт для построения социально-философской онтологии

Abstract: The subject of this article is the definition of episteme as a concept. The author is not limited by the original interpretation of the French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926-1954) in his works of “archeological” period. The goal is to demonstrate that the definition of episteme manifested in the work “The Order of Things” as basic for structuring of the social ontology that had never been created by the philosopher. Thus, the author considers the definition of episteme as a separate socio-philosophical concept applied in the philosophy of history and philosophy of language. It is underlined that even Foucault himself does not have an unequivocal understanding of the heuristic nature of episteme. The author suggest to view “episteme” not as a post-metaphysical positivity, but a path to cognition of social institutions, language and history in their overall development. Using the methods of historical-philosophical and linguo-philosophical analysis, an attempt is made to penetrate the essence of episteme as a concept that is foremost understood as the bases of the “unwritten” by Foucault ontology of the socio-humanitarian knowledge. Among the main results of research are the following: 1) analysis of evolution of the definition of episteme in Foucault’s works from the standpoint of socio-philosophical heuristics; 2) historical-philosophical determination of specificity of the notion of “episteme” in its epistemological and socio-philosophical meaning; 3) applicability of this notion for the philosophical-historical and socio-philosophical analysis. The article also demonstrated that it would be inappropriate to associate Foucault’s “archeology” exceptionally with the theory of discourses, while putting the “episteme” alongside the attempts to understand the scientific rationality leaning on the data of the history of sciences. A hypothesis is made that episteme can be considered a heuristic concept for the establishment of socio-philosophical ontology.