Section introduction. The Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences is initiating a new section titled “Ideology and Strategy for Russia’s Development.” This section will feature social science and humanities articles, philosophical discussions and reflections, materials from round tables and conferences devoted to the issues of forming an ideology for Russia that is capable of responding to the numerous challenges faced by Russian society and state today. These articles are intended to stimulate reflection and discussion among the broad scientific community about the foundations and principles of our country’s ideology, which would take into account the civilizational, historical, and cultural peculiarities of Russia, traditions, and the set of spiritual and moral values that largely shape the national self-consciousness of the Russian people, defining the resulting vector of society’s development, and would become the foundation for the construction of new socio-political, financial-economic, and military-political structures aimed at ensuring the country’s national security, orderly, methodical, and sustainable development of Russia in the current complex and rapidly changing conditions.

The article explores the civilizational and socio-political foundations of Russian ideology in the context of contemporary global shifts and challenges. The study underscores the pivotal role of the ideology as a directional and developmental vector for Russia amidst profound domestic and international metamorphoses and the emergence of a multi-civilizational and polycentric world order. Focus is placed on the integral role of amalgamating traditional Russian civilizational values with tenets of innovative development. The article argues that measures toward social justice, combating poverty and excessive wealth disparity are fundamentally important for modern Russia. Moreover, it advocates for resistance against the imposition of a dependent model of socio-economic and political evolution. The author articulates that the quintessential elements of Russian ideology encompass the intellectual, spiritual, and ethical growth of the individual, lifelong educational enrichment, and the nurturing of a creative rather than consumptive human ethos. Additionally, it calls for proactive measures against the moral, intellectual, and physical degradation of youth populations. The findings suggest that the current ideological stance in Russia should be anchored in the historical continuity and unification of diverse epochs, specifically referencing the pre-revolutionary, Soviet, and post-Soviet eras. This continuity is primarily rooted in the struggle for independence and sovereignty, the protection of family, morality, and culture, and the striving for social justice. The author concludes that the formation and development of contemporary Russian ideology could be of key importance not only for internal societal consolidation but also for the inception of a more equitable global order, as the fundamental principles of this ideology are relevant for many other countries as well.

The article discusses the legal and regulatory aspects of enlightenment activities within the context of the socio-cultural objectives of contemporary Russian educational policy. The author examines social and education-policy factors that underscore the need for extensive enlightenment efforts in the country. One of these factors is the increasing pragmatization of attitudes towards knowledge, leading to a decline in the cultural literacy of the population. Among the manifestations of this issue is the undervaluation of the importance of fostering a well-rounded cultural identity, giving precedence to a “competency-based approach.” Educational standards are geared towards skill and ability development while minimizing the significance of general education subjects. The author also highlights the challenges associated with the growing impact of information technology on the intellectual development of society. These factors necessitate the development of federal legislation to support enlightenment in Russia. However, the existing legal and regulatory framework for enlightenment activities contradicts the values of Russian society and the traditions of domestic enlightenment, effectively turning government bureaucrats into the primary enlighteners. The author analyzes specific legislative clauses that establish cumbersome bureaucratic procedures, which essentially make free enlightenment impossible. Government agencies are burdened with overwhelming responsibilities to monitor enlightenment activities. The dangers of involving citizens in oversight of enlightenment efforts are emphasized, as this poses risks of reviving a culture of denunciation. Enlightenment in Russia requires state support, not artificial constraints. The author substantiates the thesis that enlightenment activities should focus on personal development, not merely on training specific competencies.

The article examines the transformation of the understanding of humanism from the Renaissance to the modern era, focusing on the mechanism of exclusion that defines the key framework of social action, including in the present day. This social mechanism pushes declared values beyond observable reality, generates cognitive paralysis, and ultimately points to the existence of an alternate reality that dominates a morally depleted society. The replacement of reality with constructs fabricated by various doctrinal groups is identified as a major delusion of our times, luring people into self-deception, seducing them with illusory values, and confusing the noble with the ignoble. The mechanisms of exclusion serve as the essential foundation for excluding thought, values, and ideals from everyday social life. This exclusion is evident in ancient democracy, which despised slaves; in Russian literature, which flirted with serfdom; and most notably in modern autocracy and liberalism, which focus solely on their own kind. The article takes as its starting point the transitional state of society where, under the conditions of the Reformation, Renaissance values understood as humanism are reduced to post-Renaissance “humanism.” From this perspective, the treatise of F.I. Niethammer is analyzed for its contribution to the modern understanding of humanism in contrast to the educational philanthropinism of J.B. Basedow. The article reveals the connection between the term “humanism” and German anti-Semitism, showing that humanism, as conceived in the German context, was intended for ethnic insiders and educationally stood as an antithesis to the Frankfurt Philanthropin, the largest German educational institution opened in a Jewish ghetto for children from poor families. The author concludes with historical parallels and findings that identify the characteristics of modern societies shaped by the discussed mechanism of exclusion.

The article is devoted to philosophical anthropology in the works of Russian religious thinkers of the 20^th century during their period of emigration. The author conducts a comparative analysis of the main approaches to understanding human nature and its image in the philosophy of Russia abroad. The article identifies a common direction in the development of anthropological concepts, despite individual differences in the views of Russian religious philosophers. The review and analysis begin with the personalism of N.A. Berdyaev, who considered the problem of man to be central to philosophy. In his work The Fate of Man in the Modern World, Berdyaev offered a personal understanding of the new epoch of the 20th century and proposed his own project of Christian anthropology. His intellectual ally, B.P. Vysheslavtsev, in the book The Ethics of Transfigured Eros, developed an interpretation of anthropological ideas based on an original understanding of the conscious and unconscious in man. Vysheslavtsev extended his ethical framework by introducing the concept of self-knowledge, which he considers the essence of a creative personality. The article further examines the book Reality and Man by S.L. Frank, which provides a comprehensive view of this philosopher’s anthropological beliefs. The foundation for Frank’s anthropology is the idea of personal being, which has been substantiated and developed in Christian thought. L.P. Karsavin developed anthropology from the perspective of the philosophy of all-unity, understanding individual personality as dependent on higher (“symphonic”) personalities. He fully incorporated the doctrine of personality into the metaphysics of all-unity, in which the Trinity serves as the main principle in the development of the entire created world. The last section of the article delves into an analysis of anthropological ideas as presented in the works of V.V. Zenkovsky. In his work Principles of Orthodox Anthropology, Zenkovsky built his argument on the image of God found in human consciousness and justified an anthropological ideal grounded in church doctrine and Orthodox theology. According to the author of the article, all the considered thinkers of Russia abroad recognized the significance of philosophical anthropology and the need for its further substantiation in the context of the Christian worldview.

The article presents the findings of a historical-philosophical analysis of the Gordin brothers’ works during their period of emigration. This is the first study in Russian historiography dedicated to the conceptual legacy of these two thinkers following their forced departure from the USSR. The authors draw attention to the fact that the biography of the Gordin brothers continues to evoke numerous questions within the scholarly community, and their years in the USA remains under-researched not only by Russian scholars but also by their international counterparts. The article primarily examines philosophical-anthropological and social-philosophical issues. It is demonstrated that both W.L. Gordin and A.L. Gordin remained true to their spiritual bearings in emigration. W.L. Gordin continued his investigations in the field of the philosophy of technology and ontology, whereas A.L. Gordin sustained his work on a doctrine he termed “interindividualism.” The authors identify both similarities and differences in the intellectual explorations of the Gordin brothers. Special emphasis is placed on exploring how philosophical individualism influenced the intellectual pursuits of the thinkers, and how this manifested both in philosophical anthropology and social philosophy. Furthermore, their attitudes towards religion (especially Judaism), contemporary political doctrines (particularly Marxism), and scientific progress (especially quantum theory) are investigated. In emigration, W.L. Gordin remained an atheist, while his brother, conversely, developed a personal understanding of God, with whom the Ego engages in ongoing dialogue. In conclusion, it is posited that while the works of A.L. Gordin (in their conceptual content) align closely with the philosophical treatises of M. Buber (as well as the works of other philosophers inspired by Judaism), the writings of W.L. Gordin to some extent anticipated early transhumanism.

This article explores the explanation of incommensurable theories as alternative conceptual schemes based on different categorical or taxonomic structures. The concept of incommensurability, which is a cornerstone of the late philosophy of Thomas Kuhn, is elucidated, reflecting his approach to avoid assessing the history of science in terms of the truth and falsity of scientific paradigms. It is shown how Kuhn has combined Frege–Russell’s descriptivist semantics and the causal theory of reference by Hilary Putnam and Saul Kripke. His version of semantics consists in redefinition of natural kinds in terms of neuropsychology, in substantiating mentalist and internalist perspective on language. Kuhn’s philosophical position is identified as post-Darwinian Kantianism. It is expressed not in a priori nature of knowledge, but in its determination by conceptual schemes and sociocultural relativity. Despite the fact that the incommensurable terms seem to occur in the history of knowledge, incommensurability remains not the clearest and most consistent way of thinking on the history of science. Kuhn repeatedly refined his views on incommensurability, ultimately aligning it more closely with alternative classifications of objects serving as a framework for subsequent theories. Natural kind concepts, like taxonomic units, distribute the perceived objects into hierarchies reflecting structures of external world. On the one hand, kinds differentiate objectively existing objects into groups. On the other hand, kind terms are both mental modules and cultural constructs that are used to organize the experience of language speakers, identify objects, and provide the basis for group beliefs. Kuhn posits that the development of scientific theories constitutes an evolution of conceptual schemes characterized by disparities and incommensurability.

The paper delves into the methodological aspects of how foundational mathematical and physical tenets, most notably the principle of least action, are interpreted and assimilated within humanities discourse. The pursuit of the article’s objectives is driven by the necessity for a philosophical and methodological analysis of the current conceptual status of the principle of least action. This analysis is informed by cognitive-axiological and teleological imperatives of a “synthetic” development program for the principle. Any fundamental principle will not have a definitive explanation, as otherwise it would not be fundamental, but in this case, some justification can be given based on deeper grounds discussed in the article. Drawing on the epistemological frameworks of French philosophers P. Hadot, E. Levinas, J. Bouveresse, and J.-T. Desanti, the article weaves together mathematical abstractions with human experience and philosophical doctrines with physical theories. J.-T. Desanti’s perspective on mathematical objects as an outcome of human activity is examined. Also scrutinized is B. Nicolescu’s concept of transdisciplinarity, which challenges the traditional subject-object dualism in science. The author’s methodological stance emerges from a dialectical viewpoint, one that eschews a simplistic dichotomy between materialism and idealism and is grounded in rigorous scientific inquiry and an exhaustive examination of the subject matter itself. The principle of least action, as a paramount principle in physics, is shown to exemplify a legacy of innovation, positioning it as both methodologically insightful and heuristically valuable. The paper also highlights how this principle diverges from the classical principle of economy. The broader goal – within the context of “sustainable development,” transdisciplinary studies, and creative industries – is to establish the principle of least action as a paradigmatic imperative for interaction within social and economic systems. The conclusions drawn from this study contribute to a deeper understanding of the principle’s essence, the nature of transdisciplinarity, and confront the vestiges of scientism in the humanities.