Since the role of the Asian countries is increasing in the modern world, their philosophical traditions attract more and more attention. Due to this trend, a more complete panoramic view of the development of world philosophy as a whole is accessible, and it has become possible to understand that any constructions of the human mind that have arisen in a particular cultural field of experience cannot be regarded as exemplary and absolute. The researchers of Asian philosophies concentrate mostly on studying the texts of individual thinkers. As a rule, they do not set themselves the task of examining these texts from the point of view of intercultural interactions and transformations of significant ideas and concepts in various cultural and historical contexts, defining the direction and mechanisms of cultural borrowing, as well as revealing new approaches and growth points. To achieve these goals, the research should focus at the problem of the self-determination and development of philosophy as a separate science in non-Western cultures, which are based on intellectual traditions with different origin than Greek and Judeo-Christian traditions. This article deals with the consideration of some topics that elucidate the features of the development of philosophical science in Japan, including the emergence of the concept of “philosophy” in this country, the definition of its subject, the formation of philosophical terminology, and various interpretations of what the term “Japanese philosophy” means. The author pays special attention to the characteristic of the main periods of progress of Japanese philosophical thought. In the conclusion, the author argues that the most important characteristic feature of the Japanese philosophy is its involvement in intercultural dialogue throughout its history.

The paper deals with the tales on the origins of Japanese Buddhism from the 11th scroll of the Konjaku monogatari shū (early 12th century). Particular attention is paid to the stories about Saichō (767–822) and Kūkai (774–835), the founders of the Tendai and Shingon schools, thinkers, whose writings have built two versions of the doctrine of the Buddhist ritual aimed at “state protection” and “benefits in this world.” From the elements familiar to the Western reader – “lives, opinions and sayings,” according to Laertius, – in these stories the first one dominates. Brief information about the doctrines of the famous teachers in Konjaku is embedded in the narrative about their practical activities. The objectives of this activity are, firstly, to adopt in China and root in Japan the Chinese traditions of Buddhist practice, which go back to the Indian models; secondly, to arrange monasteries and monastic orders best suited to serve the country and its inhabitants. The legends about Saichō and Kūkai in Konjaku are placed in context of the narratives about the builders of temples and about the monks who visited the mainland in search of Buddha’s Teaching. This context helps to understand the principle of selecting (pseudo)biographical details for each of the sages in Konjaku. The themes of a wonderful birth and early learning successes are common in these stories; the theme of appeasement of kami deities or the treaty with them also sounds in many of these stories. In the legends about Kukai and Saichō, the themes of the arts in its Buddhist meaning (calligraphy, sculpture) and the separation of the school within the Buddhist community are also important: according to the plan of their founders, the “secret” schools, preaching enlightenment for all, follow their own special path of practice.

Nishida Kitaro (1870–1945) is a well-known Japanese philosopher whose work is marked by attempts to combine the world outlooks of the national spiritual tradition with elements of European philosophical thought. The article analyzes Nishida’s views on culture that are an independent part of his original philosophical theory. Religion, art, morality, science are the ideal forms of being in the historical world. The work of a scientist or artist is a manifestation of the formative activity of a person. The historical world as the “sphere of absolute nothingness” is the final point of the introspection of “nothingness,” where reality comprehends the identity of its opposites through human activity. Nothingness, or “Emptiness,” in the East Asian tradition has another, dynamic, dimension – these are the relations between people and the relations between man and the cosmos, or Nature, which are not perceived by rough human feelings and not comprehended by equally rough mind. Nishida stressed that for Japan the issue of the authenticity of the national foundations of culture, separated from Chinese and Indian influences, has a clearly positive answer in the aesthetic sphere: in the field of traditional poetics. The traditional aesthetics of Japan reflects the archetypal structure of the national culture. All world cultures have a common prototype, but each of them is a deviation, one-sidedness of this prototype. In the West, a culture of the form triumphed, beginning with Plato and Aristotle. In Japan, on the contrary, the culture was characterized by fluidity, processability, formlessness. In fact, Nishida is one of founding fathers of modern Japanese cultural studies.

The word “samurai” firmly rooted in the modern Russian language, along with Fujiyama, geisha and sakura. Though obviously this was not always the case. This article traces the initial process of perceiving the concept of samurai in pre-revolutionary Russia and the Soviet Union: from the 1890s, from the first military victories of rapidly modernizing Japan, to the RussoJapanese War and further to the beginning of the Second World War. Initially endowed with features of “childishness” or “femininity,” gentleness and grace, the image of Japan is gradually becoming “masculine” and is increasingly associated with the concept of “samurai.” At first, this concept is related to such qualities as belligerence and cruelty but also loyalty to lord and “knightly” honor. Often, following Nitobe Inazo, the best qualities of the Japanese are generally traced back to the samurai tradition. Later, the Japanese appear in an increasingly caricature form, as greedy but powerless aggressors. At first, this image is not associated with the concept of “samurai” but by the 1930s fused with it. At the same time, Soviet authors criticize the “feminine” perception of Japan – they describe both the ruling exploiter and the exploited worker with “masculine” traits. The article examines the early Japanese borrowings in Russian dictionaries of foreign words, the images of the Japanese in the writings of Russian and Soviet writers, the characteristics of the country and its inhabitants in popular editions devoted to Japan as well as in propaganda texts and pictures.

In the article the basic principles of L. Tolstoy’s teaching are singled out, which according to his critics testify to its “non-Christian” character. Among these principles, there are emphasis on personal religious experience; emphasis on the importance of reason as the main ability of man in his relationship with God; the understanding of God as an impersonal absolute embracing all that exists. The main principle of Tolstoy’s teaching is the possibility of a person’s merging with God, this leads to the loss of the personality of man; on the other hand, after merging person with God evil, suffering and death become inessential: a religious person must come to an understanding of life as a blessing and realize his own eternity – uncreatedness and indestructibility. Jesus Christ is understood by Tolstoy as a great teacher, and not as a Savior: Christ brought the doctrine of how to make a life good and perfect. Tolstoy denies the idea of a personal bodily resurrection, considering it to be characteristic of Judaism; in the teaching of Tolstoy man is eternal, and death refers only to the empirical level of our existence. It is shown that Tolstoy’s teaching in all these principles coincides with the teaching of Gnostic Christianity. If the hypothesis that the Gnostic apocrypha express the most ancient layer of Christian ideas is true, Tolstoy’s teaching can be recognized as the exact expression of the true, original Christianity.

Among the characteristic features of Russian philosophy, there is its openness and connections with other realms of public consciousness. In the Middle Ages Orthodox religion (i.e. theology as theoretical part of it) was trying to take over the main functions of Russian philosophy. Philosophy was not just under the aegis of religion, as it was in Western Europe and Byzantium, but in its depths. Active philosophical life manifested itself under non-philosophical covers. Russian literature also is involved in philosophy. A plenty of a philosophical writers could doubtlessly be called great. They are: Nikolai Gogol, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy, etc. The things that each of them has brought into philosophy are very different in size and direction. As a result of the openness of Russian philosophy appears a unique ideological element which borders on natural science. This element was philosophical on its nature, but it had a strong and sound ties with natural science. No less important for Russian philosophy its connection with historical science. Philosophical ideas and categories are involved in the study of historical events and processes. Historical science, enriched with philosophy, does not remain extraneous to it. Philosophical historians also influenced different sections of philosophy: philosophy of history, social and political philosophy, philosophy of religion, philosophical anthropology… Russian philosophy penetrated into other spheres – music, painting, etc., where it was represented by quite significant figures, in particular – Alexander Scriabin, Nikolay Roerich. The philosophical views of Scriabin and Roerich were not limited to the framework of their theoretical, philosophical constructions. Artistic intuition embodied these constructions in the creation of art. Nowadays contacts of Russian philosophy in its various manifestations with other areas of intelligence also do not lose their attractiveness.

The hypothesis of this paper is that language is one more Eigenform, the “external” description of which is impossible. It follows that the application of second-order cybernetics to Eigenform might be adequate. In this article, I would like to concentrate on one relatively small aspect of the idea of Eigenform suggested by Foerster, Kauffman and Spenser-Brawn. I will use Foerster`s recursive approach namely that neither observer nor the thing observed can precede each other, but instead mutually assume each other. In my research, language would stand in the place of the observer, and in the place of the thing – the world itself. To specify further, I focus on the problem of noting, and in particular, on how signs correspond to things. Therefore, I will try to show that the sign and the object (the signifier and the signified) do not precede one another and do not exist isolated from each other, but on the contrary, condition each other. Thus, language creates the world of objects, but in turn, it is created by the world. Thus it is a model of self-referentiality, which arranges the form of language as Eigenform as the idea of “mutual referentiality,” as we see it in the relation between language and the world.

The author reconstructs the theory of F. Varela with relevance to the hard problem of consciousness. This problem was touched by Varela in relatively late period of his work. However, the implications for dissolution of this problem can be found in his earlier works with H. Maturana. Theory of autopoietic systems ties life and cognition together, resulting in natural historical comprehension of consciousness and its functioning. Autopoiesis, understood as network of processes of production of components used as resources for maintaining these processes, sets organizational invariances, distinguishing living system from its milieu. The main criterion of living system is an ability to maintain autopoietic organization while undergoing structural transformations with environment. Structural plasticity leads to multiple realizability of autopoietic organizations, which, in turn, leads to radical conclusion on nature of knowledge. One can distinguish the knower and the known only contingently, as the structure of knowledge reflects cognitive structure of the knower. This intertwinement permits Varela to introduce the enactivist program, which presupposes not simply reform in the scientific research of consciousness but also rethinking the implications of scientific knowledge itself. Cognition is a sensorimotor constitution of the world. Therefore, consciousness is not an object of material nature among other objects but provides our cognitive access to nature. Varela intended to abandon the theoretical approach to the problem of consciousness. His aim was not to provide a new argument. This is a consequence of the enactivist position which, according to theory of autopoiesis, must be applicable to the knower himself.