The paper contains a brief survey of a vivid discussion between those in Russian philosophy who defend the arguments of analytic philosophy and those who criticize it. The author’s position may be called mutually supplementary, as she claims the both sides of this completion, represented by analytic Anglo-Saxon thought with logical semantics as its methodological and conceptual basis, on the one hand, and postmodern continental tradition reinforced by poststructuralist resource, on the other, equally valuable and, moreover, affecting each other for quite a period of time already.

Acquaintance with the Quine’s work Two Dogmas of Empiricism is a basic requirement in the philosophical education. It is widely accepted that his work has played an important part in the history of rebuttal of Logical Empiricism. Thorough research, however, can show that the Quinian argumentation suffers from a number of different weaknesses that logical empiricists, especially R. Carnap, pointed out long ago. Facts such as these, therefore, motivate a recasting of the impact of Quine’s Two Dogmas and renew the problems surrounding a distinction between analytic and synthetic knowledge.

The escalation of our civilization's global crisis obstructs its transition to a qualitatively new phase of development, which should be based on both anthropotechnological and spiritual transformation of man and society. In this light the article considers the questions of transhuman evolution and objectives and projects of Russia 2045 Social Initiative.

The article discusses the problems of transhumanism and posthumanism as far as evolution is concerned. It shows the need to innovatively expand the concept of human evolution in its anthroposocial and cosmic dimensions, and stresses the constructive role of Edgar Morin’s principles of recursiveness and complexity as the main instruments of organizing synergetic interdisciplinary communication in the age of macroshift, growing instability and uncertainty, in the age when human starts to co-evolve with himself.

The author discusses the concept of transhumanism developed by J. Huxley and analyses the views of some of the contemporary proponents and opponents of transhumanism. Value foundations of transhumanistic projects are compared with the traditional understanding of humanism.

The paper explores the way the postwar philosophy has influenced the development of social sciences (in particular, political science and international relations theory). By example of Ole Wæver’s securitization theory we do not only show how contemporary political scientists borrow from philosophy (in our case we look at J.L. Austin’s speech act theory), but also explain why such adoption results in inexactitudes in Wæver’s interpretation of Austin’s speech act theory.

The article explores Ricœur’s interpretation of autonomy and identity. The author examines the correlation of these concepts in the light of changes in social life and shows how Ricœur’s system opens new perspectives on the contemporary person’s social life.

It is evident from Paul Ricœur’s short article «The Golden Rule: Exegetical and Theological Perplexities» (1990) that the analysis of moral norms should be based on understanding of moral norms’ text and context conceptually comprehended.

Connection and mutual reversibility of mechanisms of spatial and temporal modes of consciousness have long attracted the attention of philosophers of phenomenology. The question of the relationship between internal (mental) space and time is analyzed in the context of the phenomenological discourse of the XX century at the example of hermeneutic dialogue of Paul Ricœur and Aurelius Augustine in his book «Time and Narrative». The purpose of the article is the interpretation of space and time as a modus of consciousness, which means describing them as a measurement of each other. For that make an analysis of the use of terms Modus and Modality, revealed the specifics of their content in the work of Ricœur. Understanding of subjective space and time as a single modality of consciousness is justified, besides ideas of Ricœur and Augustin, by the analysis of spoken language, the psychological concepts of divisibility of time, criticism of ideas of Bergson, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Mamardashvili.

The article reviews American researches of the 1980s – 2000s in deep ecology analysing the problem of ecological crisis. The major reason of the crisis is considered to be the loss of the communitarian feeling and conscience both between people and between human and non-human beings. The presented authors make their investigations in the framework of the communitarian paradigm and propose various modalities of community as a way out of the crisis.

The article considers the humanistic aspects of the problem of global social-anthropological crisis that were in the center of attention of the classics of the world philosophy. The author demonstrates that in the 20^th century the scientific and technical progress turns into its opposite – negative consequences for man following inadequate implementation by the society of the results of the scientific and technical revolution.