The article advances the notion that contemporary philosophy exists not as an ontology, but rather as an anthropology. The author posits that our understanding of being is contingent upon our comprehension of the human condition. Through an examination of the intellectual debate between M. Foucault and A. Badiou, the author demonstrates that I. Kant was the pioneer in European philosophy to interrogate the essence of humanity, thereby inaugurating an anthropological mode of philosophical thought. Building upon Kant’s proposition, the author presents the intriguing hypothesis that the essence of humanity, or humanitas, is encapsulated within its capacity for hallucination, or hallucinatas. This perspective leads the author to introduce the novel philosophical concepts of “hallucenosis” and “explosion of hallucinations.” Here, “hallucenosis” refers to a collective of individuals engaged in a shared dream state, while “explosion of hallucinations” denotes the primal self-representation of humans as depicted in the rock art of the late Paleolithic era. The author gives particular emphasis to the concept of “double inversion” in human nature, a notion originally proposed in Russian philosophy by B.F. Porshnev and Yu.M. Borodai. Double inversion is interpreted as the emergence of self-consciousness, on one hand, and a speech event, on the other. The author further develops the idea that in contemporary human behavior, consciousness and intelligence are fundamentally disconnected. The conclusion drawn is that while intelligence facilitates animal existence in space, consciousness enables human life in time. In the author’s view, to hallucinate is essentially to live in time. The article substantiates the claim that organic intelligence and human intelligence operate within distinct sensoriums. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence, lacking its own sensorium, is argued to be non-existent in this context.

The article explores the manifesto of the Moscow Anthropological School, emphasizing the primacy of hallucinations in anthropogenesis. The current predicament of modern humanity urges the anticipation of something genuine and substantial. However, the essence of philosophy does not always align with the prevailing “spirit of the times.” Its mission is to pursue autopoiesis, scrutinizing society for its inherent flaws that impede progress. From this viewpoint, F.I. Girenok’s hallucinatory theory is entirely pertinent and justified. The narrative of civilization is typically portrayed as a chronicle of discoveries and triumphs of rationality over irrationality. The history of fears and misconceptions, which not only persist from the past but also resurface, is less well-documented. Therefore, the program of the Moscow Anthropological School is far from being peripheral; on the contrary, it holds significant relevance.  It  furthers  the  tradition  of  inversion  anthropology, initially established by N.Ya. Danilevsky, the first Russian critic of Darwinism. This anthropological tradition was particularly advanced by the concept of B.F. Porshnev and the research of contemporary authors like Yu.M. Boroday and V.A. Podoroga. Each, in their unique way, contributed to the critique of evolutionism and reductionism. F.I. Girenok’s concept evokes schizoanalysis, albeit devoid of Marxist influence, unlike G. Deleuze. All these aspects warrant a comprehensive philosophical discourse on the manifesto. Meanwhile, reports and discussions concerning F.I. Girenok’s theory revealed that not all participants are readily prepared to tread the path suggested by the founder of this theory, confining themselves to theological explorations instead. This, as per the author of the article, inherently signifies that hallucinatory and messianic anthropologies are complementary to each other.

The article discusses the criteria for authentic humanity within the moral paradigm of Russian philosophy. In Russian philosophy, the disciplines of ethics and anthropology are intertwined, as the question of human nature is primarily addressed from a moral perspective. The article primarily focuses on the interplay between faith and conscience, a topic that is approached and resolved differently within the context of Russian philosophy compared to Western European philosophy. For instance, the concept of “elimination of the ethical,” a fundamental aspect of S. Kierkegaard’s existential philosophy, is discussed. The transcendence of ethical rationalism through a leap of faith, exemplified by Abraham’s act, forms the essence of authentic Christian ethics. It explores how faith is challenged by ethics, which requires not blind faith, but rational behavior in accordance with the widely accepted norms of social morality. The article highlights the conflict between existential faith and social ethics as the primary contradiction identified by S. Kierkegaard. The author revisits the ideas of F.M. Dostoevsky, N.A. Berdyaev, and others to illustrate that within the context of Russian philosophy, the critical situation is less about the anticipation of death and more about the moral anguish of conscience arising from the evil and falsehood prevalent in the world, a sentiment shared by diverse individuals like V.S. Solovyov and V.M. Shukshin. This perspective significantly redefines the concept of the existential in Russian philosophy, equating it with profound moral reflection. In discussing philosophical and anthropological issues under the “post-human threat,” the author introduces the concept of “conscientious faith.” This concept, serving as a fundamental anthropological unit, posits that it is the conscience, with its appeal to personal moral responsibility, that reveals the moral essence of an individual, thereby establishing human uniqueness.

The article delves into an analysis of duality as a fundamental anthropological principle that forms the basis for understanding what it means to be human. The article uncovers the ideological continuity within Russian anthropological projects, while also highlighting significant differences between Russian and European thought in this context. F.I. Girenok's philosophy is presented as a unique project in modern thought, marked by its distinctiveness and originality. F.I. Girenok's works, noted for their succinctness, accessibility, and meaningfulness, serve as the basis for the analysis of this project. Philosophical problems, which can be elucidated by understanding duality as a fundamental anthropological principle, are explored in the article. The article argues that considerations of intellectual continuity, originality, and real-world relevance are essential when analyzing the views of thinkers such as F.M. Dostoevsky and F.I. Girenok on the human condition. The approach to the human condition in both historical and contemporary Russian philosophy is revealed in the article. Using European philosophy as an example, the article analyzes the implications of excluding this issue from philosophical thought and underscores the pressing need for its reintegration into philosophical discourse. The article focuses on how F.I. Girenok's ideas can be used as a framework for evaluating the future development of society. The potential for developing a distinct Russian philosophy, a necessity in the current reality, is uncovered in the article. The author substantiates that Russian philosophical anthropology contributes to the development of Russian thought in a unique manner and secures its distinct position in modern philosophy.

The article discusses the key issues of contemporary philosophical anthropology and highlights three basic questions, through the answers to which the features of different philosophical currents are revealed. In particular, in light of these questions, the author shows the position of the Moscow Anthropological School (MAS). The first question is related to the definition of a human. Classical thought, fascinated by reason, understood man as a rational being, but today, along with disappointment in the possibilities of reason, the uniqueness of man’s status in the world is also being threatened. The MAS questions the understanding of a human as a rational animal and offers its own view, presenting a human as a hallucinating being, as this strategy, on the one hand, has a large explanatory potential, solving the question of the possibility of secondary senses (sense of reality, sense of time, sense of self), and, on the other hand, preserves the singularity of man, distinguishing him both from animals and from artificial technical systems. The next question, revealed by the author in the article, is dedicated to the problem of freedom. Contemporary thinking predominantly identifies freedom with the variability of choice (in the consumption of economic goods, in the transformation of one’s own corporeality, etc.). In contrast, the MAS presents a distinct interpretation of freedom, centered on a subject endowed with subjectivity and the capacity for self-determination. Additionally, the openness of a human and their ability to transcend boundaries in modern philosophy is construed as the potential to experience the non-human or transhumanistic. Within the MAS framework, the concept of a human of reverse perspective is developed, signifying a human whose internal experience supersedes the external. Lastly, the third question addresses the under-standing of nature and ecology. The “green” agenda advocates for radical technological and social solutions, promoting the equality of humans and animals. An alternative approach is the conceptualization of Sophia, which suggests the unity of all creations, as opposed to the integration of the human with various non-human forms.

The article presents a comparative analysis of the philosophical and aesthetic perspectives of English poet and philosopher Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Russian philosopher Nikolai Onufrievich Lossky on the issues of the theory of art and cognition. The study highlights the synergies and differences in their conceptions of art, music, imagination, and the interconnectedness of phenomena in the world, demonstrating how the philosophy of art serves as a key component in achieving a holistic understanding of human nature. The article explores Coleridge’s concept of the organic unity of art as a living, evolving entity that transcends individual artistic disciplines. It delves into the poet’s views on the creative process and the role of imagination in shaping artistic expression, emphasizing the significance of his ideas for understanding the role of art in the human experience. Focusing on the unique aspects of Lossky’s philosophical ideas on art, the article argues that Lossky’s views on music are intrinsically linked to his philosophical doctrine of intuitivism. Intuitivism enables direct perception of an object by the knowing subject in its original form, rather than through a copy, symbol, or construction. Lossky’s doctrine distinguishes three modes of intuition (sensual, intellectual, and mystical) and acknowledges two realms: the world and the Superworld (the Kingdom of God). Sensual and intellectual intuition function within the world, while mystical intuition paves the way for a breakthrough into the Superworld (the Kingdom of God). The article demonstrates that music, as a fundamental component of Lossky’s philosophical doctrine, plays a crucial role in enabling a clearer vision of the object by the cognizing subject in its original form, as well as in the complete fulfillment of the missions designated for all three types of intuition. Music is a fundamental element of Lossky’s philosophical doctrine, where the indivisible unity of a musical tone’s properties serves as a symbol of the organic integrity of phenomena in the world. In conclusion, the article emphasizes that a deeper understanding of Coleridge’s and Lossky’s philosophical and aesthetic concepts can provide a transformative outlook on the philosophy of art, fostering interconnectedness among various realms of human creativity and strengthening the continuity of human culture while counteracting destructive forces in the world.

On March 25, 2023, the Faculty of Philosophy at Lomonov Moscow State University hosted the “Moscow Anthropological School: New Ideas in Philosophy” International Scientific Conference. The event was held in honor of Professor Fyodor Ivanovich Girenok’s jubilee. The conference welcomed speakers from Russia, Belarus, France, and the United Kingdom, along with attendees from various universities, cultural, government, and business institutions both within Russia and internationally. The conference delved into the fundamental issues of philosophical anthropology, highlighted contemporary strategies for understanding humanity, explored future development prospects, and showcased the accomplishments of the Moscow School of Anthropology in shaping modern philosophical concepts. Among the anthropological strategies proposed were singular philosophy, event anthropology, synergistic anthropology, Messianic anthropology, the anthropology of silence, the anthropology of the tale, and network-centric anthropocentrism. A central theme that resonated through-out the conference discussions was the relationship between the human and non-human aspects of humanity, and the associated issue of the relationship between consciousness and artificial intelligence. Emphasizing the uniqueness of human existence, conference participants explored phenomena such as morality, action, meaning generation, imagination, inner life, self-action, self-falling, human duality, and non-objectibility. The conference under-scored the distinction between artificial intelligence, defined by an algorithmic function, and human consciousness, characterized as an extension of reality through the establishment of values and goals. The conference also paid special attention to the issue of language, specifically the dichotomy of word and image, sign and silence, and the potential for their synthesis in speech and the symbolization of social practices.

The XIX International Panarin Readings, convened on December 23, 2021, were dedicated to the memory of Professor Valery Nikolaevich Rastorguev (1949–2021) from the Department of Philosophy of Politics and Law at the Faculty of Philosophy of Lomonosov Moscow State University, who was a long-standing organizer and initiator of these readings. The Panarin Readings, initiated in 2003 following the demise of the notable Russian philosopher and political scientist, Alexander Sergeyevich Panarin, have now evolved into an international forum. Since 2008, the primary venue for these readings has been the Department of Philosophy of Politics and Law at the Faculty of Philosophy of Lomonosov Moscow State University. The central theme of the conference’s plenary session was Russia’s national identity amidst strategic instability. The summary encapsulates key insights from over two dozen plenary reports presented by a diverse group of scholars, politicians, publicists, and theologians from various countries. These presentations highlighted both the challenges faced by modern states in preserving national identity and the crucial need for the scientific community and policymakers to pay close attention to this issue.

The review offers a critical examination of P.N. Kondrashov’s monograph, Nine Myths of Karl Marx’s Philosophy: From Demythologization to the Reconstruction of the Original Ideas. Kondrashov employs an expansive definition of myth, encompassing any distorted interpretation of Marx’s philosophy that is prevalent within certain groups. Kondrashov posits that these distortions primarily stem from misattributions to Marx, decontextualization of his statements, and subsequent reinterpretations that invert their original meaning. However, the book’s author can only partially substantiate the existence and prevalence of these distortions. As a result, his understanding of the “degree of prevalence” affords him almost unlimited discretion to classify as myths both widespread misconceptions and contentious interpretations known only to a narrow circle of specialists. Consequently, the debunking of these “myths,” which in many cases can only loosely be classified as such, transforms into a critique of revisionism and other forms of “bourgeois ideology and propaganda.” Kondrashov often “reconstructs” what he perceives to be “myths about Marx’s philosophy,” only to subsequently refute them, thereby reaffirming his own interpretations of contentious aspects of Marx’s philosophy. In conclusion, while Kondrashov’s primary contribution lies in his positive exposition of the reconstructed ideas of Marx, the framing of this process as “demythologization” could potentially lead to confusion.