The article raises the question of the spiritual component of the revolutionary situation that gave birth to October 1917, emphasizing the socio-philosophical interpretation of the idea of revolution. The author shows, that the latter puts her analysis at the forefront as the “point of bifurcation” of the historical process that places man in the situation of choosing the variant from the directions of social development proposed by history. Within the framework of such an approach, the analysis of the revolutionary situation assumes its correlation with the cultural and spiritual context of the epoch (features of national self-awareness, the educational level of the masses prevailing in the world ideological ideas, etc.). In this regard, the author turns to the domestic philosophy of the history of the second half of the 19th-early 20th century, showing in what theoretical context she considered the issues of freedom, violence, revolutionary break-up, reform, voluntarism, revolutionary terror. The article shows the conjugation of the interpretation of these issues to the political orientation of the October uprising and the subsequent transformations in the system of power and the socioeconomic structure of Russian society. Separately, the author poses the question of the extent to which the cultural, spiritual and political experience of the Russian democratic movement influenced the character and methods of revolutionary changes. The author justifies the thesis that the latter adequately “lie” only on the consciousness of the masses prepared for them and the opposition that claims political leadership. She analyzes the situation, which shows that by the beginning of the 20th century the fact of the polarity of the existing points of view on the social meaning of the expected revolution and the split in the democratic movement was obvious.

The article is dedicated to the centenary of the October revolution in Russia. In this context, the author considers here several related questions of philoso-phical and methodological nature. Among them there are: the study of change in the assessment of the revolutionary process in general, and their manifesta-tion in particular; the causes and consequences of the emergence of updated versions of what was happening a century ago, and also the influence of these innovations on the traditional scheme of the idea of the revolution itself. The author focuses also on the comparative analysis of the scientific, philosophical, artistic and mythological ways of perception of the revolutionary events with the aim of studying the possibilities of their more or less close interpenetration in the course of primary and the modern mythologizing of the Russian revolu-tion of 1917, and any other radical movements of the masses.

The subject-matter of the article is the “post-modern empire” concept which arose at a joint of centuries. The analysis’ purpose is demonstrating modern political philosophy’s quest for concepts/methods of analyzing post-empire, it reveals “sovereignty” concept as relevant for describing the respective prob-lem field. Hence the hypothesis: the experience of Russia, when analyzed (by hermeneutical method) as a kind of post-empire, serves as a conceptual me-diation for perception of modern policy subjects’ identity. Claims, mounted by states on the status of sovereign political bodies, makes us transfer attention from classical definitions of sovereignty to a concept of being sovereign, which is related to sovereignty, though not identical to it. Being sovereign denotes any state’s ability to cope with three interconnected functions (symbolical rep-resentation - political mobilization - democratic governmentability) unique for any political subject. It is suggested that, for modern Russia, the status of imperial” Russia: all were continental (not colonial) empires, “empires without colonialism”. Unlike Modern colonial empires (their “rational” policy in Third World countries was correlated to “homo economicus” ideological creed), Rus-sian “imperial” consciousness managed to withstay all ideologies. Russian “imperialness” identity has civilizational parameters.

This article is devoted to the problem of determining the specifics of the Russian mentality as a socio-cultural phenomenon. Geopolitically located between East and West, Russia represents a complex mix of different patterns, manifested in its cultural landscape. The distinctive features of national character, formed under the influence of external and internal factors and entrenched in the process of historical development are clearly manifested in the mentality of Russian people.Crisis of national identity caused by the processes of globalization and in-creasing migration flows led to the emergence of identification mechanisms through which the individual determines his place in the sociocultural space.Despite the originality of Russian civilization, it can’t stay away from cul-tural contacts and borrowings. The new models of post-Soviet chronotope symbolize the splitting of the former space, so the study of the worldview transgression, manifested in the specifics of Russian mentality is not just relevant, but vital for understanding the cultural situations of the past, the present and forecasting the future.Using cultural-historical, cultural-anthropological and socio-philosophical approaches, the authors analyze Russian mentality and its transformation in the modern sociocultural space.The author's contribution is the development of an interdisciplinary research approach combining the analysis of significant characteristics of Russian culture with mental attitudes aimed at dominating the emotional component in social practice, setting sacralization of state power and paternalism, traditionalism of the domestic way of life, openness to dialogue with other cultures. The specifics of the Russian mentality is interpreted taking into account the ontological and historical basis, going to the modern level of understanding the problem.

This article explores various approaches to the study of identity: psychological, sociological and cultural-historical studies, formulates generalized model of identity. Identity is a significant dependence of the means of formation and specific content of personal “I-concepts” on some higher-level identity model controlled not by local interactions and individual subjects but by macro factors. dynamic bimodal structure and includes the mechanism of constant maintenance of integrity, the unity of our self, in spite of its bimodal bifurcation.

The study is devoted to the problem of identification and identity in the digital cyberphysical world, where the personal and group IDs of subjects and material things (objects) play an increasingly significant role in their incorporation into emergent sociotechnical systems and networks. An ethical, man-centered vision of anthropology and social philosophy is developed in the situation of dictatorship of identifiers. A historical analysis of the problem of identification in megasystems is carried out; heuristic of the notion of “multiplicity” by Paolo Virno in the post-fordist era in the light of the development of digital production, Industry 4.0. The modern axiological dominants of the SmartX concept (“smart house”, “smart factory”, “smart city”) are criticized. Presented the propaedeutics of the concept of the cybernoosphere (as a planetary unity of cyberphysical, cyberbiological and cybersocial processes) and the concept of cyberphysical sobornost with an attempt to reactivate the classical concept of Russian philosophy of cosmic sobornost in the context of the development of modern cyberphysical systems, the convergence of technologies and global space exploration projects.

In recent decades, the question of the reality of the historical past has risen to the forefront of analysis, not only in historiography or historical theory but also in literary criticism. In different forms, a tendency has come to expression in these disciplines that blurs the distinction between historical representation and fictional narrative, and casts suspicion on the historian’s claim to uncover a measure of “reality” of the historical past. This article examines Paul Ricœur’s critical response, in different periods of his work, to the challenge raised by historical skepticism. It focuses on how Ricœur, after a period of initial criticism of Heidegger’s philosophy in his works of the 1980s and early 1990s, appropriates in his late work Memory, History and Forgetting, a number of key concepts that Heidegger proposed in Being and Time and reformulates them to buttress his theory of the reality of the historical past. The aim of this article is less to provide an exegesis of Ricœur’s conception of historical understanding, than to critically examine the theory of the “reality” of the historical past that he developed during different periods of his work.

The аrticle is devoted to the study of the status of a Historian of Philosophy and the historico-philosophical practice in the Soviet philosophy of the 1930s on the basis of works by Mikhail Lifshitz devoted to Hegel’s philosophy. Due to comparison of the historico-philosophical practice of the so-called “Techeniye” (Mich. Lifshitz, G. Lukacs, etc.) with the earlier Soviet philosophical tradition of interpretation of Hegel’s philosophy (A. Deborin and his school) core changes in understanding of the work of a Historian of Philosophy of the beginning of the 1930s can be traced. Analysis of the methodological aspects of these changes and transformation of the way of work with the established Soviet historico-philosophical concepts play an important role in this study. Attention to the articles by Mikhail Lifshitz of the beginning of the 1930s devoted to Hegel’s philosophy allows the reader to acquire a new idea of the role of the system of values and personal qualities in the course of historico-philosophical work at the turn of the 1920-1930s and also a new idea of the role of a Historian of Philosophy in the society in which he lives. Special attention is given to the consideration of fundamentally new interpretation of socio-cultural foundations of Hegelian philosophy in Lifshitz’s articles of the 1930s. There is a change of the methodological approach to the history of philosophy in the Soviet philosophical tradition which led to several changes in the status of philosophy historian as an ideologist. Thereby, the problem of the political relevance of historical and philosophical work in the 1930s is considered.

Thе article explores the question of the role of the poet and state-man Gav-riil Romanovitch Derzhavin (1743-1816) in the development of the concept of “Russian Northernship” - a rich “identification matrix”, which played a big role in the philosophical and ideological thought of the 18th and the first third of 19th centuries and pushed back into the distance in the middle of the 19th cen-tury, with the beginning of the “classical” Russian dispute between “Wester-ners” and “Slavophiles” and reorientation searches of Russian identity on the axis East - West. The article analyzes the ratio between “spiritual poetry” and “ideological” practices in the work of Derzhavin. The author explores the major philosophical and literary works of Derzhavin, which sets out the main mean-ings of the concept “Russian Northernship”: solemn Оdes on the capture of Ochakov (1788), Izmail (1790), Alexander Suvorov victories in Italy (1799), the expulsion of the French from Russia (1812), and the programmatic poem “Wa-terfall” (early 1790s) and “Snigir” (1800). Author concluded that it is “Northern” motive of Derzhavin which was developed later in the works of K.N. Batyush-kov, P.A. Vyazemsky, A.A. Delvig and A.S. Pushkin.