The article considers the possibility of using digital scientific art as a tool for philosophical and aesthetic cognition. On the example of games of cellular automata and from the point of view of the paradigm of synergetics, a large-scale analogy of the dynamics of multi-element distributed systems of various natures is revealed. The question is raised about the nature of beauty, which is interpreted as a fundamental cosmic phenomenon. The concept of protoconstruct is viewed as a mental (mathematical, digital) object, the properties of which are transferred to the objects and phenomena under study. As an example of digital protoconstructs, the article discusses the so-called cellular symmetroids. Cellular symmetroids can be considered from the point of view of scientific art as art objects. At the same time, they represent a deep ontological metaphor. A unique property of cellular symmetroids is spontaneous destruction and transition to quasi-chaotic dynamics. This feature can be linked to the idea of historical time, which is very unusual for mathematical objects. Mathematical structures that arise as a result of calculations according to this model are completely unique and inimitable, like the internal states of the soul or psyche of a thinking subject. At the same time, they are to the same extent determined (even involuntary) by the previous state. Integrity, internal unity are inherent not only in symmetric structures but also in the chaos that is born after them, which, in contrast to stereotypical statistical intuitive ideas, is deterministic. However, such an abstract digital art, based on the unconventional mathematics of dynamic chaos, is an accurate ontological metaphor, a visualization of the eidos of the beauty in their relationship with the cosmic logos and the nature of the original creative chaos.

The article discusses the V.V. Tselishchev’s original and unique systematic study of the specific and extremely complicated problems of Gödel results regarding the question of artificial intelligence essence. Tselishchev argues that the reflexive property should be considered not only as an advantage of human reasoning, but also as an objective internal limitation that appears in case of adding Gödel sentence to a theory to build a new theory. The article analyzes so-called mentalistic Gödel’s argument for fundamental superiority of human intelligence over machine one and the non-algorithmic nature of natural thinking. The discussion about the Gödel argument is not entirely speculative, but contains new knowledge. An example of such knowledge are the results of R. Smullyan levels of computers “awareness,” which are may be interpreted in a psychophysical sense. The concept of “zero level of intelligence” is proposed for such a reflexive property as “awareness of selfconsciousness.” Reflexive ranks below the awareness of self-consciousness can be considered negative levels of thinking in the sense that the intelligence, being reduced to them, significantly loses its completeness. Even self-consciousness turns out to be a negative level of thinking, since, according to Smullyan, the subject of self-consciousness is unaware of the type of thought to which he belongs. A thought experiment is proposed that allows us to establish the distribution of the properties of Smullyan stability and normality and to answer the question “Does an intuitive belief in the truth of a formal proof affect the truth of a proposition being proved?” According to intuitionism, the most unpleasant epistemic property is instability: beliefs that are not based on deep intuitions have no value. According to the constructivist philosophy of mathematics, instability is a less negative property than abnormality: the fact that high-ranking beliefs cannot be immersed to the very foundations is not significant because violation of truth due to lowering the rank of reflection is not critical.

The article outlines the prospects of using J. Hintikka’s interrogative epistemology for modelling cognitive operations carried out by a cognizing agent to create a machine capable of full cognition. It was established that modeling is divided into two objectives: modeling the cognitive operations and modeling the strategic reasoning. Interrogative epistemology presents a solution to the first objective. It relies on a game-theoretic formal apparatus that allows one to correctly describe all types of possible moves within the framework of a particular cognitive game. The second objective cannot be accomplished in a general epistemological theory framework since strategic considerations about the organization of research and even the concept of knowledge inevitably depend on the broader context of an agent’s practical activity. Therefore, interrogative epistemology does not claim a universal and complete description of the process of cognition, focusing on other tasks: primarily on identifying hidden premises that cognitive agents use in their reasoning. For the same reason, interrogative epistemology deems the possibility of the existence of a cognizing machine as formally unsubstantiated and questionable. However, arguments are given in favor of the fact that interrogative epistemology serves as an acceptable conceptual framework for clarifying the nature of the difficulties that arise with attempts to accomplish the second objective and improving the quality of philosophical discourse in the field of artificial intelligence research. The author substantiates this position by arguing that the ability to cognize presupposes the ability to perform all the essential functions that are usually called mental.

The article analyzes the concept of practical ethics in the moral philosophy of Thomas Reid (1710–1796). The significance of this study is determined by the fact that Reid, for the first time in the history of ethics, offers an internally differentiated conception of moral philosophy, which includes two parts: the theory of morality and practical ethics. The theory of morality studies the conditions for the possibility of morality (moral psychology and epistemology). Practical ethics is normative, deals directly with the content of morality (duties, rules, and first principles). Both parts of moral philosophy is cognitive in the nature. By distinguishing the theory of morality and practical ethics, Reid expresses a key idea for him: the distinction between good and evil and the fulfillment of duties is attainable to any reasonable person free from the influence of passions and prejudices. They do not need any special philosophical knowledge to fulfill their duty. Reid’s idea was perceived in contemporary ethics as a possible key for overcoming the difficulties that applied ethics faces today: (a) the problem of confirming its philosophical status; (b) the problem of the relevance of its guidelines, which are often perceived as abstract theorizing by specialists in specific fields. Reid showed that in morality, unlike other sciences such as anatomy, there can be no experts, and in order to be relevant, ethics must speak the same language with those to whom it addresses, and about those specific problems that are essential to them.

The first mentions of “social engineering” and “social technologies” concepts started from the 19^th century. Until the present moment, different lines of this story have been left neglected and insufficiently researched. In the article, initial meanings and authentic contexts of their usage are explained in more details. The investigation reaches the 1920s−1930s and is finished at the intersection of the Soviet and the American contexts concerned with scientific organization of labor, business optimization and economic planning. In conclusion, recent modifications of social engineering are briefly characterized. They are connected with development of information technologies and automation of smart cities. The research appeals toward histories of scientific management in North America and Western Europe, its industrial roots and unexplained foundations. Meanwhile, it is philosophically substantial due to conceptual analysis and explication of presuppositions of our thinking in respect of society and ways of changing social reality. After Sir Karl Popper, social engineering has been associated with the Soviet methods of planning and centralized governance. However, one can be assured that until now this concept has evolved by different, alternative trajectories within the context of industrial modernization of Europe and America. Within post-industrial world, the vision of social engineering has been enriched by IT-analogies, and social practice is interpreted in light of organizational, cultural, mental, or historical algorithms, which are the subject of purposeful manipulation and modification.

The article discusses typical for human nature propensity for cognition and understanding. Cognition is a long process of orientation of thought in the world full of substances and energies. This process begins together with an appearing of personality and forms that personality. Understanding is human ability to fit systems of belief and knowledge into the world view recognized by the scientific academy, оr alternatively, to fit one into the religious doctrines. For a more prominent research of cognition and understanding it is necessary to distinguish subjectivity levels. The one is contained in us as we are the subjects of collective cognition and understanding, and the second contains my “Self” (the hidden, inner content of my personality). These levels can also be called “ours” and “mine.” In regards to cognition and understanding, a personality can designate and consider them as the heritage of all mankind and as his personal heritage. These both have a certain meaning. Further it is necessary to conclude that cognition and understanding have different shades of meaning depending on the field where they are supposed to be used. In the process of researching the problem, we realize the need to underline the problem of meanings in the creative nature of the personality. Meaning and creativity together form a personality, it is a vivid expression of human nature. The most important properties of a personality’s consciousness are cognition, understanding, and the ability to produce meanings. Discussion of cognition and understanding within the framework of the article can only have a relative accomplishment and must be further developed via new meanings.

Modern humanities are in an ambiguous situation. Their organization is experiencing a radical challenge from the expansion of science-based assessment methods from modern business. We are talking about evaluating the results of researchers’ work on indicators (KPI) from scientometrics. As a result, the evaluation subject is not the content of the research result, but their popularity and relevance to dominant views and approaches. The science organization turned upside down: it turns out not scientometrics for science, but rather science for the sake of scientometrics. At the same time, digitalization and related information and communication technologies are a great achievement of civilization. Therefore, it is all the more important and useful to resist the thoughtless digitized bureaucracy using the digitization itself. This article is an attempt not to criticize digital methods, but to consider the possibilities of using blockchain technology, its advantages and the problems it generates. There are such opportunities as transparent self-organization of scientific communities, assessing the contribution and its priority, encouraging researchers. At the same time, the implementation of the blockchain implies the interest of a critically significant group of scientists with a high reputation. It is equally important to demonstrate the convenience and effectiveness of scientific work using the blockchain. The article draw attention to the significance to propose and discuss approaches to methods for assessing the quality of humanitarian and interdisciplinary studies that are adequate to the scientific practice itself, that arouse the general confidence of scientists.

The article examines the processes taking place in contemporary musical culture, and the emphasis is placed on the situation that has developed today in the musical life of Russia. It is noted that many contemporary composers in Russia are breaking with the domestic artistic traditions, focusing on the creative initiatives of composers living in the West. Among the Russian composers, the SoMa group composers (Soprotivlenie Materiala – “Resistance of Material”) are distinguished by a special intransigence to the principles of artistic creativity that tradionally developed in Russia, they loudly declared: “Contemporary Russian music is us.” At the same time, it should be taken into account that Russian music is inextricably linked with the artistic traditions of Russia, which, first of all, is manifested in the reliance of the musical material on the songfulness that originates in the liturgical Orthodox singing. It is emphasized that today in Russia there are composers who maintain contact with the tradition, thereby preserving the achievements of Russian music. Among them, first of all, are the composers who are part of the MOST group (Muzykal’noe Ob’edinenie “Sovremennaya Traditsiya” – Musical Association of Contemporary Tradition). Moreover, the composers work in all cities of Russia – from Kaliningrad to Vladivostok – and increase the glory of Russia by their creativity. An interview is given with one of them – the Perm composer Nikita Shirokov. In conclusion, the author discusses the prospects for the development of the journal’s section – it is planned to publish materials and interviews related to the contemporary musical life in other countries.

This review is focused on the book Faith and Science in Russian Religious Thought written by Professor Teresa Obolevich and published by Oxford University Press in 2019. This book has become a landmark event among historians of Russian philosophy. The review examines the main ideas of each of the book’s chapters and shows that they all represent a new look at the problem of the relationship between faith and reason in the history of Russian thought. It is noted that the author of the book follows the idea of Russian philosopher Semyon Frank, raised in his article “Religion and Science.” Obolevich shows that Russian religious thought was not on the side of confrontation between religion and science but on recognizing two parallel paths with two different subjects of knowledge: the world and God. At the same time, Obolevich analyzes the stages of essential knowledge in Russian thought as a form of synthesis of the scientific and religious path. The review also notes that this author’s approach to examining the history of Russian philosophy is a very successful attempt to substantiate the relevance of Russian thought in the 19^th–20^th century in the context of the sociocultural challenge of the current stage of European society’s development.