The article analyzes the socio-cultural and theoretical origins of the Russian philosophy of history. These origins determined the development of the philosophy of history as a special feld of philosophical knowledge. This process took place in the second half of the 19th century, a significant factor of which was the split within the cultural and spiritual unity of Russian society on the wave of Alexander II’s reforms associated with the abolition of serfdom. In this period the subject-matter of the philosophy of history was defned. In the author’s opinion, the subject-matter of the philosophy of history includes: 1) the historical process in its universal human dimensions and in “past – present – future” movement, 2) the life of society in historically concrete forms of the organization of human community, 3) historical epistemology. The article shows why the philosophy of history, formed in this research feld, was established in the public consciousness and intellectual context as historiosophy, i.e. knowledge of spiritual senses, the beginning and end of history. This philosophical-historical paradigm excluded the oppositions, on the one hand, between philosophical knowledge and historical science and, on the other hand, between the philosophy of the history and social philosophy. As the main ideas of the Russian philosophy of history during that period, the author considers the idea of the integrity of historical existence as an “organic life” (Granovsky) and the idea of the variability of the historical process, interpreted as the constant inclination of history to “permanent improvisation” (Herzen). The author pays special attention to the development of the concepts of “transitional form” and “chaos,” which provide the acceleration of the progressive movement of history and the possibility of an active and responsible participation of an individual and masses in it. The attention to this problem introduced the spiritual and moral component into the ontological basis of the historical process as well as the concept of necessity and chance, freedom and violence, revolution and evolution into the conceptual apparatus of philosophical and historical knowledge. As a result, simultaneously with the metaphysical principles, the principles of concrete historical and axiological analysis were integrated into the methodology of the philosophy of history. This approach to the analysis of the historical process has preserved its heuristic potential to the present day.

The article focuses on the key issues of contemporary Chinese academic publications on the specifcs of Chinese rationality. Among its most common characteristics, there are focus on practice, attention to everyday life of society and individuals, pursuit of centrality and harmony in the moral sphere. Cross-cultural comparisons serve to justify the role of traditional rationality as a balancer keeping Chinese thought away from subjectivism, irrationalism, abstract reasoning and formalism. The researchers seek to identify the impacts of “applied rationality” upon the formation of positive features of Chinese national character. The widespread interpretation of Chinese practical rationality underlines the priority of practice of political governance over the theoretical reasoning about politics; in the moral sphere it leads to rejection of extremes in human behavior and sets the normative status of the middle path and harmony. The inclination of humans to keep their emotions under control and to take a proactive approach to the world was accompanied by recognition of the higher value of empirical experience and intuition compared to formal and abstract ideas. The focus on the secular life of people deprived the Chinese rationality of the “otherworldly” religious dimension. The participants of the discussion note that the Chinese culture has gained stability and “elasticity,” but it lacks Western formal rationality, which is a prerequisite for scientifc knowledge. Chinese researchers pay much attention to the impact of traditional rationality on the formation of Chinese philosophy in the 20th century and to the choice of socio-political path of national development. The emphasis on the differences between the cultures ofChinaand the West is combined with searches for similarities between Chinese rationality and Marxism. That steers the discussion beyond the sphere of comparative studies and makes its content relevant to the understanding of broader set of contemporary problems.

For a long time, leading European thinkers have denied systematic, theoretical and rational nature of Chinese traditional thinking, unpretentiously reading it as banal moralizing (“moral philosophy,” at best – “moral metaphysics,” etc.), not supported by any proper philosophical discourse. However, the habitual socioethical label conceals a much deeper problematic of strategic thinking. At its center, there is the question of choosing all sorts of strategies: from everyday life to special technical ones, from personal existential choice to fateful state decisions. The concept of a winning strategy is emblematized by the dramatic plot of a deadly risk (“stepping on a tiger’s tail”) but under certain conditions with guaranteed happy end. The strategy of harmony (he 和), which is miraculous in its effectiveness, is proposed as a exemplary strategy. It allows you to “step on the tiger’s tail” with impunity (lü hu wei履 虎尾). From the point of view of strategic thinking, the criterion of cognitive value of reasoning is its effectiveness (in the context of a particular game), and the most effective is unmistakable prediction, i.e. the ability to predict the outcome of future developments with the help of reasoning. In the ideal case (under certain conditions), prognostic reasoning becomes not just plausible but 100% reliable that is an apodictic true inference. Therefore, the highest cognitive status in the Chinese intellectual tradition is endowed with guaranteed error-free prognostic reasoning. This type of reasoning, where the reliability of foresight is guaranteed by the implementation of a certain winning strategy, can be called the prognostic form of deduction. As a result, the dynamism of Chinese logic, which relies on a deliberate staging of the future (sometimes with the help of stratagems of varying degrees of cunning), is strikingly different from the static nature of the classical image of logic (both traditional and modern), where logic is no more than a static guardian of correctness of reasoning. On the contrary, the Chinese concept of logic focuses on deriving consequences from strategic considerations regarding the future, actively and purposefully shaped by the subject who at the same time constructing both himself and the world around him.

The article deals with to the early forms of categorical thinking. The conceptual schemes are formed independently of each other in various ancient civilizations, and that is an evidence of the universal nature of some fundamental features of early categorical thinking. The author proceeds from the idea that defning characteristics of categorical thinking (according to the prominentGermanphilosophersI.Kant and M. Heidegger) are the apriority and the extreme generality of concepts. Thus, a category is an extremely generalized concept, the last basis for the explanation of the all being by reducing it to a few defning beginnings; and this is an original, structuring perception form of conceptuality, which man has before any empirical experience (i.e. a priori). The same, with some reservations, can be said about the ancient sages’ elemental principles of being because these principles meet the above mentioned requirements of categoricity. These basic conceptual constructs (such as the binary, ternary and quinary classifcations inChinaand the four elements of the early Greek philosophers) with extreme generality reflect the structure of the world around and serve as the structural basis for less general concepts. Proposed explication of the conceptual nature of the Chinese “fve elemental forces” is appealing to the Kantian idea of the transcendental scheme. This idea brings us closer to understanding the early forms of categorical thinking in general and the schematism of Chinese thinking in particular. The article also considers the original interpretation of the Kantian scheme by Umberto Eco.

The search for the backbone of the types of rationality inherent in different cultures keeps on to be an open problem, which remains relevant to the need of closer intercultural interaction in the global world. At the same time, the analysis of the logic of language as the basis for the study of rationality types continues to occupy an important place. Meanwhile, the studies of grammatical structures and language models from the point of view of their connection to a certain type of thinking and influence on the method of philosophizing are still quantitatively inferior to the researches of lexical aspects. Expansion of this type of research with the involvement of a diverse cultural material over time will allow us to reach the level of establishing regularities of a more general nature. This article contributes to the development of this issue. The author deals with the approaches to the defnition of the paradigm of Japanese rationality proposed by researchers of grammatical features of the Japanese language, on the one hand, and the “logic of place” concept and the “absolutely contradictory identity” principle of prominent philosopher Nishida Kitaro (1870–1945), on the other hand. A special attention is drawn to the structural similarity of the grammatical form highlighted by linguists, in which the decisive role belongs to the predicate, and to Nishida’s logical model reflecting specifcs of subject-predicate relationship as well as perception of opposition in terms of “contradictory self-identity.” In the conclusion of the article, the author demonstrates the relationship of this model with the certain idea of subject, the type of epistemology overcoming dualism, the processual and cosmocentric comprehension of the world that can be traced in Nishida’s statements.

The question of the Russian man – his past, present and future – is the central one in the philosophy of history. Unfortunately, at present this area of philosophy is not suffciently developed in Russia. Partly the reason for this situation is the lack of understanding by researchers of the role played by Russian classical literature and its philosophizing writers in historiosophy. The Hunting Sketches, a collection of short stories by I.S. Turgenev, is a work still undervalued, not fully considered not only in details but also in general meanings. And this is understandable because it is the frst systematic encyclopedia of Russian worldview, which is not envisaged by the literary genre. To a certain extent, Turgenev’s line is continued by I. Goncharov (the theme of the mind and heart), L. Tolstoy (the theme of the living and the dead, nature and society, the people and the lords), F. Dostoevsky (natural and rational rights), A. Chekhov (worthy and vulgar life). This article examines the philosophical nature of The Hunting Sketches, its structure and content. According to author’s opinion, stories can be divided into ten groups according to their dominant meanings. Thus, in The Hunting Sketches the main Russian types are depicted: “natural man,” rational, submissive, cunning, honest, sensitive, passionate, poetic, homeless, suffering, calmly accepting death, imbued with the immensity of the world. In the image and the comments of the wandering protagonist, Ivan Turgenev reveals his own philosophical credo, which he defnes as a moderate liberalism – freedom of thought and action, without prejudice to others.

Russian classic writer Ivan Turgenev, analyzing the Russian reality of the second half of the 19th century, presented inside one work – novel Smoke – an anthropological review of society, showing a change in the speech styles of different layers of the population. The novel is dominated by the idea of a dialogue of cultures – an obvious dialogue of Western European and Russian culture, and no less obvious dialogue that took place within the multitude of Russian cultures: gentry’s and common people’s, merchants’, raznochintsys’, and philistines’ cultures. In Turgenev’s novel, the sign of a new time is freely discussed opportunities of solving the problems that have arisen, fnding solutions not in a rational way but in the hope for suddenness and fortune. However, the ways of solving problems, regardless of the possibilities for their implementation, must be discussed, argued, and analyzed. Therefore, the novel intuitively shows the way of the birth of a parliament, which was absent inRussia at that time. The article demonstrates the importance of a rational, philosophical way of reasoning, which can become a life principle when words and deeds correspond with each other. Turgenev in some way – through different speech instances – stratifed the new generation, showing a new face of unstableRussia. The main driving force of many, if not all, of Turgenev’s novels is freedom and the words and deeds born by it. A previously unseen fgure of a revolutionary appears, expressing a new attitude to society and to power. Turgenev’s modernity and timeliness consists in fxing such a mentality in which the emphasis is placed on the metaphysical idea of the beginning: it exists, it receives an impetus – and there is almost no movement, everything is only projected, only utopized, turning the thinker into an odd man. And although not only the idea of freedom, but thefree state of a person is recognized as a historical fact (this Hegelian thought appeals to Turgenev), he emphasizes that Russian freedom was born without waking up.

The article deals with the little-studied but actual problem of loneliness of an outstanding creative personality as a consequence of stereotypical understanding of his works and activity. The cultural and philosophical meaning of Ivan Turgenev’s motif of loneliness is that he was a lone creator, recognized by Russian critics and historians of literature (V. Belinsky, D. Merezhkovsky, V. Rozanov) only in the context of the activities of other recognized great writers: Pushkin, Gogol, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Chekhov. The problem of loneliness is revealed through the paradoxical statement by Turgenev (in the essay “Hamlet and Don Quixote”) on the question about strange loners and aggressive crowd. The paper presents the loneliness of I.S. Turgenev as a rejection of the understandable and normality among the non-understandable and weirdness. In Russian literatury critical and historico-cultural tradition, during the discussion of Russian classics, the general opinion (N. Berdyaev, D. Andreev, V. Nabokov) has been formed: Turgenev is apparently non-Russian author (because he is very European unlike N. Berdyev and V. Nabokov themselves), moreover he is not a classic writer indeed (if you count that a classic writer should be irrational, when Turgenev is understandable).

The memory of the past is one of the supporting structures of society. Contributing orientation in time and space to society, the memory acts as a connection between the present and the future. With the help of memory, society maintains its identity. What society remembers or forgets is the cultural core of its values and meanings. Being the representation of the past, versatile and selective memory is undergone to constant reorganization in the society in accordance with the demands of the present. The Soviet project, aimed at forming of a new society and a person, offered also its own project of the past, created its culture of memory. Ideas about the past changed along with the change of the Soviet present and the vision of its future. An important component of the culture of memory are the commemorations. Anniversaries of signifcant events and historical fgures allow to organize the work of the past in the present, to enter them into the current cultural space. The anniversary reading of the classic authors of Russian literature in the Soviet period was associated with the idea of mastering the cultural heritage of the past by the working people. The methods and forms of their memorialization, aimed at mass perception and appropriation, corresponded to the heroic matrix, which played the main role in the institutionalization of the Soviet collective whole. This matrix, based on the class-party principle, had two successive profles: revolutionary-international and nationalpatriotic. In the Soviet period there were several important dates in memory of Ivan Turgenev. Honorings of the writer complied with a certain canon. Turgenev’s works were primarily understood from the point of view of their social signifcance, in the context of both the Turgenev era and the Soviet era. Its multivalent potential was mainly considered from two aspects: the service to the revolution and the service toRussia.

This article examines the siginifcant role that Romeplayed in the life of Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev (1818–1883). The author researches the “Roman” preferences of young Turgenev, who specialized in ancient literature and philosophy in Moscow, St. Petersburgand Berlin. Special attention is paid to the circumstances of 21-years-old Turgenev’s stay in the Eternal City in February–April 1840 and his relationship with members of Khovrins’ salon in Rome, espesially with the eldest daughter of Khovrin, Alexandra Nikolaevna, in marriage Bakhmeteva (1823–1903), whо became later a wellknown writer on religious and philosophical topics. The author substantiates the version that it was young “Sashenka” Khovrina who became the prototype of Lisa Kalitina in the novel Home of the Gentry, started in Rome at the end of 1857. The author studies the “Italian traces” in the literary work of Turgenev: in early romantic poem Steno (1834), poem Venus of Medicis (1837), novel On the Eve (1859), etc. The author notes that the “civilizational” contrasts between the “North” and the “South”, abundantly scattered in the works of young Turgenev, suggest that in his work has found a kind of continuation of the tradition of the “Russian Northernship,” deriving in Russian literature from G.R. Derzhavin, N.M. Karamzin, Prince P.A. Vyazemsky.

Pragmatism is usually viewed as a unifed school, movement or tradition. Lists of its most important tenets typically include advocacy of open inquiry, pursued with an awareness of human fallibility, a view of justifcation that appeals to shared experience in all its manifestations – aesthetic, religious, moral, political and scientifc – and a conception of philosophy as a practice interwoven with problems of contemporary life. While disagreements among pragmatists are widely acknowledged, they are most often treated as easily resolved or of marginal importance given the substantial body of doctrine that pragmatists are thought to share. I argue that this view of pragmatism obscures important philosophical differences among its proponents, to the serious detriment of our understanding of the tradition. I point out that fgures most often credited with advancing pragmatism – Charles Peirce, William James, John Dewey, W.V. Quine, Hilary Putnam and Richard Rorty – defend signifcantly divergent views, views that are anything but easy to reconcile. Their differences go to the very heart of how pragmatism is to be understood and defended and present serious obstacles to any characterization of it as a tradition with a common philosophical method, purpose or core set of doctrines. Pragmatism is far more diverse, subtle and diffcult to come to terms with than contemporary accounts of what is living and dead in it commonly presume.