The article is devoted to one of the most pressing and controversial issues for modern Russia. O.N. Smolin considers the consequences of socio-economic disaster of the 1990s, the economic growth in the first decade of the 21st century, the crisis of 20142016. Analyzing, among others, A.L. Kudrin’s report at the 8th Gaidar Forum “Russia and the World: The Choice of Priorities,” the author concludes that quasi-liberal model of the social and economic development of Russia (commonly called Kudrinomics) is inefficient. The main components of a new economic model are proposed: - Neo-industrialization; - Reduction of social inequality, including through progressive taxation of noninvested profits of the wealthiest citizens; - Investment in human capital, especially in education. The article analyzes the dynamics of the development of human capital in Russia and its main components, emphasizes the key role of education in the Human Development Index, and demonstrates that a continuation of current policy could lead to a decrease in HDI and, consequently, to an undermining the basis for country’s modernization and a threat for a new model of social and economic development.

The development of the humanistic tendencies are possible only in the case of formation of the individual as the subject of culture and history, and certainly through the practice of the transformation of social relations. The promotion of the ideals of humanism, as shown by the practice of the Renaissance and the USSR, is only possible in the case of formation of the individual as the subject of culture - in the first case and the subject of history and culture - in the second. In addition, implementation humanistic ideals are possible only through a dialectical overcoming of the dominant forces of alienation. These laws identified common features and contradictions of the Renaissance and Soviet culture, despite the differences in their historical genesis. If the Renaissance through the ideals of humanism created / conceived image of the New man, the historical and cultural practices of the Soviet project have already formed their own ontological imperative as the principle of creative transformation of social reality and himself. This is the essence of the activity humanism. The elimination of the subjective principle of the individual in the field of social transformations objectively leads to the extinction of the humanistic content of culture, and thus to strengthen the power of alienation. The modern development of culture just confirms it.

This article is devoted to the problems of the content and history of the “classical” theories of dialogue - from the point of view of the sociology of knowledge. The problems under consideration are as follows: the social conditions and structures that helped to the theories of dialogues to emerge, survive and develop (despite of all the obstacles in the forms of prohibitions and supervisions) - such as the existance and a dialogue of small informal groups of scientific communication which were a result of unevitable scientific specialisation.

Electronic Culture covers almost all aspects of society, significantly alters consciousness, established skills, ways of thinking and ways of life, urgently requires their restructuring. E-culture is a necessary condition for the development of Russia, its worthy place in the world. This determines the need to concentrate efforts on the development of national science breakthrough technologies related to NBICS-convergence, capable of creating new productive forms of electronic culture as a means of enrichment and development of the Russian culture in general. This also emphasizes the utmost importance of socio-humanitarian examination of innovations in this field, the awareness they generate negative effects and counteract them. But at the same time it is equally important to create favorable social conditions for the further development of e-culture, to counteract the social groups and organizations that actively prevent it. This nihilistic attitude they are trying to justify by the political, economic, religious considerations. The article shows a complete failure and reactionary character of such arguments, including those which are based on the ideology of a special Russian way.

The article discusses the strong and weak versions of chipping in the context of the development of electronic culture. The weak version is actually valid in the system of electronic culture in the real activities of modern society. Almost in all business areas, in administration, education, banking industry, military industrial sector, etc. using chips and electronic devices has long been an empirical fact. The strong version faces four challenges: the lack of fundamental theories of the brain, uncertainty of norm and pathology in medicine, the lack of legal norms defining the concept of “human nature” and the conflict with traditional moral and religious values. The criticism of electronic culture and chipping is based on the thesis of the inadmissibility of intervention in human nature. The article shows that changing human nature is the pattern of biological evolution. In addition, cultural factors, within which anthropogeny occurs, have further accelerated this change. The criticism of electronic culture as a whole can be seen as a criticism of modern science and technology with the pseudoscientific notions on the incompatibility of science and human nature. But at the same time, the full implementation of the strong version of chipping is premature.

The article notes the role of electronic culture as the subject of philosophical research. The fundamental contradiction between the actual human reality, meanings and values of the culture, and physical subatomic reality of electronic technology is of interest. The phenomenon of electronic culture is revealed in a number of contexts, sustainable use of the phrase. The prospects of its development in Russia are drawn for each direction, despite the importance of a new phenomenon in the world culture, stating the facts of scientific, organizational and educational problems in the development of domestic e-culture. There are several ways to solve these problems. The first is the path of innovative development through the cultivation of advanced foreign technology, it is hardly possible. Here we appeal to Chaadaev concept of “Russian immunity”. The second way is the preservation of traditional values, it is impossible because the “tradition” is archaic. There is a suggestion that, perhaps, a certain “third” path is preferable for Russia. However, a third way, which is spoken by many media, is incomprehensible and unimaginable.

The article is devoted to the critical reflection of sustainable mythological ideas of an average man on the nature of a technological progress and innovation. The author describes the paradoxical situation of the imaginary “fight” of technology (media) against technological advances of Modernity. The article shows the mechanism of manipulation of the mass consciousness in the developing of psychological “War” against different means of scientific and technological innovation. All mythological rhetoric, used by the mass media, didn’t examine a really contradiction between the scientific and technical development and mental origins, between a spiritual and moral characteristics of perception of these innovations by the broad masses in conditions of transition to electronic culture. This rhetoric produces various stereotypes, myths and phobias. The article describes some techniques of mass media, such as usage of fear of new technological developments, E-culture, despite the fact that these achievements have become a part of our everyday life, integral part of this. Particular attention is paid to the problem of “Homo Digital”.

In this article the author presented the characteristics of e-democracy (culture) and showed the political and legal framework of e-democracy in Russia. According to the author, electronic democracy and culture should become one of the basic foundations of civil, information society and legal culture of interaction between government and citizens. The legal basis, the desire of the leadership of the country and citizens for this is available. As a result, e-democracy should become one of the foundations of civil, information society, network technologies and legal culture of interaction between government and citizens.

The article is prepared on the basis of the report at the Institute of philosophy of RAS on the Round table “Electronic culture: problems and prospects” initiated under the influence of threats which have excited media from the increasing rates of introduction of two types of innovations: mass “chipization” of people and refusal of cash. Reaction of society to these innovations was not unambiguous that does urgent philosophical judgment of such innovations and development of ideas of the future in which there would be possibilities of overcoming negative consequences of electronic (digital) culture development. The article justifies unpreparedness of mankind to respond adequately to technological challenges and threats. Criteria for evaluation of technological innovations (productivity, safety, development, satisfaction) are offered. The assessment of two types of innovations in electronic culture is carried out: mass introduction of electronic chips to people and elimination of cash. Priorities of Russia on the organization of adequate response to technological calls and threats of the 21st century are considered. The first, we have not to lag behind in the development of high technologies, otherwise we will not even be able to understand and control innovations. The second, our country can’t influence significantly distribution of such innovations on a global scale now, the solution should be limited to country scales (perhaps, BRICS and SCO), having provided its system consideration and inclusion in structure of urgent problems of national security. The third, is urgent the problem of formation of the image of future country capable to use adequately all the four types of given criteria for evaluation of innovations.

The main part of the publication is V.N. Ilyin’s lecture on logic and methodology of sciences. It is devoted to V.N. Ilyin’s views of philosophy of science. The author of article shows the general approach of V.N. Ilyin to logic, relation between the system of morphology, logic and ontology. Besides, the author of article considers V.N. Ilyin’s works on problems of scientific world view. V.N. Ilyin proved that logic and psychology are interconnected, he was of opinion that these sciences were the basis for scientific world view. He had considered the notion of logic in the context of morphology, the central images of logic for him were “Thought” and “Logos”. In Ilyin’s opinion, “Logos” is the basis of logic of science about the correct thinking. The logic is science (“knowledge of knowledge”), as well as philosophy through logic influences to spiritual human life. The logic makes the basis the majority of sciences. Besides, the history of philosophy shows that the logic gave impulse to development of human thought during all eras. Ilyin maintained that new history of logic is necessary in science. The book about the value of logical knowledge in the history of world culture has to be written. Ilyin offered reform of traditional logic: logic will be transformed to comprehensive knowledge (“pan-logic”), the interaction of logic and morphology will unite “sciences about the nature” and “sciences about spirit”. Ilyin had connected such reform of logic with the change of a scientific world view in the 20th century, with revolutionary discoveries in physics (the theories of N. Bohr, A. Einstein and other scientists).

The publication is devoted to the programs of Vladimir Ilyin lectures on Russian religious and social psychology deposited in the archive of Alexander Solzhenitsyn House of the Russia Abroad. The introduction includes information about Vladimir Ilyin studies in psychology and about his lectures on Russian religious and social psychology. V.N. Ilyin considered psychology in the context of morphology, his main philosophical conception. In Ilyin’s opinion, the Christian psychology is the part of hamartiology (the theological doctrine about original sin). According the Ilyin’s interpretation, religious psychology includes Christian psychotherapy, the analysis of human soul, the research of various mental diseases. Ilyin analyzed correlation of amartology and existentialism, spiritual transformation and personal creativity. Ilyin showed the idea of Christian psychology on the examples from literary works of N.S. Leskov and F.M. Dostoevsky, Orthodox patristic (John Climacus, Ephrem the Syrian etc.), the biographies of Russian Saints (Sergey of Radonezh, Seraphim of Sarov). He considered that the combination of medicine and church practice, the union of a doctor and a priest can be productive for psychotherapy and psychiatry. Then Ilyin devoted the following courses of lectures to the doctrine about characters and psychological types (with examples from literature - N.V. Gogol, M.Yu. Lermontov, F.M. Dostoevsky etc.), the conception of social psychology in the context of orthodox doctrine about “sobornost” and Russian religious philosophy (V.S. Soloviev, S.L. Frank, L.P. Karsavin, N.A. Berdyaev etc.). Ilyin offered Christian interpretation of sociology and social psychology for creation harmony between personality and society.

The article describes the Philosophical society of the USSR - the Russian philosophical society in 1987-1999, when its President was the academician Ivan Timofeevich Frolov (1929-1999). It refers to the transformation of the Philosophical society, to the deployment of its publishing activities, to the unrealized project of the Philosopher’s Home, enhancing international contacts on philosophy, the establishment of the Association of young philosophers, the complexities associated with the organization of the Russian philosophical society and the formation of the tradition of the Russian philosophical congresses. I.T. Frolov has a crucial role in maintaining a professional philosophical space in Russia at the turn of epochs in the early 1990-ies. He managed to save the unity of the philosophical community. It was created the Russian philosophical society. An important step was the World Congress of Philosophy in Moscow in 1993. During a Congress the philosophers of Russia and CIS were able to maintain the field of dialogue and institutional cooperation. In all this I.T. Frolov took a leading part. He led the work on preparation and holding the First and Second Russian philosophical Congresses (St. Petersburg, 1997; Yekaterinburg, 1999). At the Congresses I.T. Frolov made presentations, which were designated the task of modern Russian philosophers. I.T. Frolov enjoyed wide popularity and respect in the regional organizations of the Russian philosophical society. The grateful memory about I.T. Frolov is preserved today in the philosophical community in Russia and former USSR countries.