The article considers logical and historical links between the develop- ment of solidary relations investigated by solidarology and revolutionary processes that took place in the Republic of Armenia in the spring of 2018. These connections are due to the fact that the quintessence of studies of the theory of solidarology is the conclusion that, in opposition to conflicts, the priority development of solidary elements in public relations and ensuring their transformation by peaceful means; so-called “revolutionary” processes in Armenia had a peaceful, non-violent character, so in essence they were not revolutionary in the proper sense of this concept, but a moment of progressive evolutionary transformations in the country according to the laws of solidarology. The main argument in favor of such a statement is that not a single drop of blood was shed in these events, no violence against the personality and no collapse of public life as a whole were noticed, most decisions were made on a compromise, mutually satisfactory basis, and no one was subjected to political repression neither by “prerevolutionary” authorities, nor by “winners” in the confrontation. Therefore, the Armenian “revolution”, due to its specificity, requires a special scientific and philosophical analysis and artistic interpretation. The new scientific and philosophical discipline of solidarology believes that in solidary relations the personal interests of the subjects of relations are transformed into a single, universal interest in the striving of everyone towards a common goal, good and harmony. This phenomenon in the Armenian “revolution” found practical expression in the fact that the single idea of “everyone and all” of its participants was a change in the current situation, and so there was a need to change power in the country peacefully, without any violence. One of the leaders of the movement, N. Pashinyan, understood it in time and came forward with the goal of uniting all for joint actions. The social thrust of this movement, the ability to provide effective social progress, the cultural and civilizational consistency of the goals and tasks of the “revolution” must become the subject of a special analysis as its consequences and further developments become clear.

Social revolution practice in Russia and other countries showed proletarian immaturity as a subject capable to provide purposeful transition of humanity from prehistory to the true history. It is explained not only by absence of true revolution theory, but also by reduction of its population and role in historical process in relation with machine living labor displacement in production process. Marx’s analyze of tendencies of production forces development based on scientific achievements and their materialization in technic and technologies, which allowed to use natural processes as labor agents, gave Marx foundation for prediction some self-negation directions of classic capitalism which characterized industrial society age. Postcapitalistic society transformations, conditioned by revolution process of replacement of mechanical machinery with new NBIС-technologies, become real in the course of deployment of scientific and technological revolution, confirm Marx’s rightness regarding the objective process of capitalism self-negation and inevitability of radical social transformations of the existence of a modern postindustrial society.

In the article the modern German philosopher, a theorist of Frankfurt school Axel Honneth, following the leading representatives of the Western Marxism, recognizes essential distinction between historico-political writings of Marx and his later works on economy. He discovers the specificity of this deep divergence in the fact that Marx, explaining the social processes in these two bodies of his works, uses different categories of temporality and applies different theories of action. The author clearly shows that in Marx’s historical and political works moral intentions of collective actors are crucial in determining social actions, while in later works on political economy they play no role any longer, since all the processes of development of society are explained there by expansion of the logic of capital. Conclusions drawn from the moral aspects of collective action in Marx’s historical and political writings, are applied in this work to the conceptual expansion of the Marx’s analysis of capital, which, according to Honneth, is too narrowly based on “utilitarian premises”. Honneth is convinced that only after expanding the conceptual foundations of “Capital” by sociological context we can clearly see the normative conflicts accompanying capitalist activity. According to the author, only by including morality in the political economy we can reveal the influence of social struggles on the internal relations of the capitalist market economy. In his opinion, this is a necessary start for the construction of any practically oriented social theory.

The article analyzes the main ideas of Marx and Engels on the essential processes characterising the historical development of societies. The author shows that it is scientifically untenable to contrast the views of Marx and Engels on the ability to learn the laws of natural and social development. Marx and Engels are great scientists and revolutionaries. They turned socialism from utopia to science. Marxism discovered the main law of historical development: the law of equivalence of production relations to the charachter and development level of productive forces. Marxism proved that the main contradiction of capitalism is the contradiction between the social character of production and private character of product appropriation. Marx was certainly right in his understanding of the main processes of capitalist development. He gave the fighters against capitalist exploitation and oppression a model of the socialist society, which will inevitably establish itself as an alternative to capitalism, a society, where life will be characterized by labour, freedom, equality, justice, solidarity and peace. The author is convinced that Marx's theory is deeply scientific. Yet he does not say that one can find there all the answers to the questions of modern historical development. The experience of millions and time will show us the way. We need to study that experience, and check the reality against our ideals, without ever adjusting it to some forever established postulates.

The article analyzes the history and prospects of artificial intelligence as a scientific discipline and technologies. Is it possible to reduce all intelligent human actions to algorithmic procedure and how to find the meta-procedure for private algorithms? The answers to these questions are, to a first approximation, the history of artificial intelligence. This history moves in cycles: it seems that if not today, then tomorrow artificial intelligence will solve all the problems of mankind, then artificial intelligence is only a utopia. Today we have serious reason to believe that in the near future artificial intelligence can truly transform human society. The main reason for the new capabilities of artificial intelligence is the integration of its applications with modern digital technology, Internet technology and Big Data. The article discusses the question of what social and existential threats are associated with the artificial intelligence. The article emphasizes that the positive use of artificial intelligence methods is directly related to our understanding of what is а man. Thus, in the implementation of the development of artificial intelligence technologies, the participation of philosophy becomes vital.

In this article we have analyzed how Internet services developed throughout history as an answer for evolving social call for cognition and communication means. Although nowadays cognitive and communicative functions of ICT go hand in hand, however, in the past years the situation was more complicated. Public communication and cognition services took the lead over each other either following or running ahead of the society’s call. During the last decades a sort of a revolution took place in the use of information mediators and therefore the cognitive needs are now driven by constant demand. This revolution is characterized by common use and rapid development of hypertext structures. In the article crucial results of psychological studies of the hypertext use are revealed. Authors claim that systematic studies in philosophy, psychology and education are required to achieve full understanding of the directions of development of communicative and cognitive processes nowadays and in the near future. Keywords: cognition, communication, Internet, information technology, hypertext.

Pragmatism is a philosophy of praxis that concentrates on the dynamic character of social practices and material activities in particular historical circumstances. Moreover, it is a historicist philosophy that puts an emphasis on process, progress, transition, and the unpredictability of change. Pragmatists as different as William James, John Dewey, and Richard Rorty tell antifoundationalist stories of progress, that is, they seek to convince us that we should try to reach a point where we no longer deify anything and where we no longer look for God-substitutes. Trying to make the idea of a postmetaphysical and genuinely humanistic culture look attractive, pragmatists continue the legacy of the Enlightenment. This article discusses the question of whether it is possible to speak of a “pragmatist enlightenment” in this context. What would this term denote? What exactly are the implications of the idea that pragmatism, as a philosophy of praxis or “naturalistic humanism” (Dewey), can contribute to completing the project of the Enlightenment? Rorty’s antifoundationalist story of progress culminates in the attempt to make “a postmetaphysical culture” in which the idiosyncrasies of self- creation can coexist with the process of achieving democratic consensus about how to maximize happiness and how to develop new forms of solidarity. If we are willing to continue telling Deweyan and Rortyan narratives of progress and emancipation, then we should no longer worry about the analytic-continental split or controversy. One should focus on the most convincing, and most elegant, way of bringing together analytic philosophy, continental philosophy, intellectual history, literary studies, and American studies.