Filosofska Dumka

When we talk about historical revisionism, negative connotations as a rule are prevailing. Prohibition of revision of certain historical interpretation and assessment is one of the tasks of historical policy which is carried out by adopting so-called «memorial laws». Taking care of the formation of the desired representations of the past (narratives) is directly related to the interests of institutionalized power in its own stabilization and strengthening. Power is a function of the community, whose identity is formed historically. Consolidation of collective identity through the support and reproduction of common representations of the past is one of the tools to strengthen power. At the same time, the very nature of human experience acquisition which is permanent me diation of the horizon of the past and the present, presuppose a reinterpretation of this past. Major shifts in the experience of generations, which occur as a result of certain social changes, lead to a new look at the past of the community. In this sense, rethinking and rewriting history becomes necessary to clarify, update, rationalize the collective identity, which is problematized by new experience. Historical policy can both respond to this need for identity transformation through rethinking representations of one’s own past and come into conflict with it. In the latter case, the narratives transferring by institutional power begin to conflict with the communicative memory of the generation experiencing a shift. One of the tools of self-preservation of power in this situation is blocking of living historical experience, which can take various forms. The culmination of such a blockade is «hermetization» of historical time that take place in totalitarian state. The living historicity of experience, which requires a constant rethinking of one’s own historically inherited identity, is replaced by an artificial, time-frozen identity, which, precisely because of this nature, becomes fragile and doomed to destruction. On the other hand, the rewriting of history initiated by the authorities within the framework of historical policy may face resistance to the representations of the past rooted in the communicative and cultural memory. The resistance of historical narratives indicates that the collective memory and the identity founded in it are not only a power construct, but also a spontaneous layering of sediments of historical experience. In today’s world of global communications and unified everyday practices, historical narratives are beginning to play an increasing role, as they remain the only seat of identity. At the same time, this process reinforces the conflict potential of communities, which can be observed in many examples of the revival of historically motivated political ambitions. In this situation, a critical clarification of various interpretations of the past becomes a means of rationalizing the historically inherited identity of communities as a necessary condition for intercultural dialogue.

Modern dialogue between Western science and Buddhism raises an enormous range of cognitive issues that require interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research. The idea of methodological pluralism (MP) arises here as an ef fective solution for such projects. Having immersed itself in the study of the background of its opponent, Western science touched the fairly old and specific way of reality cognition, which in certain aspects actually can be identified as a Tibetan-Buddhist version of the MP. In an interview with the professor from the United States, who for many decades has been engaged in research on the boundaries of various science disciplines, ethics, and religious studies, we tried to clarify the specifics of this so-called version of MP, which is set out in the Buddhist doctrine of time, Kālacakra. Texts of this doctrine are included in the corpus of Buddhist canonical literature and form the basis for two classical Buddhist sciences: the science of stars (which is actually “social astronomy”); and the science of healing (which looks like a certain version of “psycho-medicine”). During the interview, we went directly to the possibility of using the Buddhist version of MP at least within the dialogue “Bud dhism- Science”, to the need to understand the specifics of such an implementation, and to the mandatory combination of MP with an integrated approach. The interview was intended to raise the question that deals with transgressing the abovementioned dialogue from the “consumer” level (when we are looking for something that could be useful to the Western neuro-cognitivist) to the philosophical one, in order to formulate a criterion for recognizing a different way of thinking, and finally, to move on toward the semantic discussion, without which the integration phase of any kind of MP is impossible.

У цьому числі «Філософської думки» публікуються матеріали семінару «Лабораторії науко- вого перекладу», який був присвячений обговоренню українського перекладу твору Арис то теля «Метафізика». Семінар відбувся 22 вересня 2020 року в Інституті філософії імені Г.С. Ско вороди НАН України за підтримки ГО «Лабораторія законодавчих ініціатив» і видавництва «Тем- пора». Текст українського перекладу представив перекладач твору Олексій Панич. Екс пер- тами були Леся Звонська та Віталій Терлецький. Модерував семінар Вахтанґ Ке бу ладзе.

The paper analyzes Max Weber’s concepts of rationality and rationalization as components of modernization processes in modern society. The author reconstructs Weber’s interpretation of “spiritual factors” of social development, which emerge in the ethos of Protestantism. The research demonstrates how Weber’s study of capitalism in terms of rationality corresponds with concepts of other classics of German sociology, such as Ferdinand Tönnies, Werner Sombart, Georg Simmel and others. The article emphasizes the relevance of Weber’s sociology for XX— XXI centuries and how its basic concepts and methodological approaches have been further de- veloped by scholars, including Ukrainian ones.Weber’s concept of rationality is applicable not only to the mental-epistemological sphere, it also acquires a social meaning. This approach has gained recognition in phenomenological sociology, theory of social systems, communicative theory and more. In addition to the formal rationality of the economy, modern social sciences use such concepts as social, aesthetic, ethical, environmental, and practical rationality. Weber’s “diagnosis of the age” is still a component of the “diagnosis” of modern society. The gap between values and interests remains an integral feature of the “risks and threats society” in the XXI century. This situation is especially evident in international relations, when “real politics” (Realpolitik), based on interests, becomes insensitive to “value postulates”. The author also discovers ways of value (moral and ethical) reclama- tion of modern society, particularly in the concepts of “ethical economy”, universalist ethics of discourse, global ethos and more.

The article is devoted to the study of the Max Weber’s position in sociology and philosophy and the position of sociology and philosophy in relation to Max Weber at the turn of the millennium. The author addresses a number of aspects of Weber’s theory (epistemology, axiology, ontology at the microlevel and at the macrolevel), well known and studied in sociology, in order to produce a holistic picture of Max Weber’s conceptual and methodological proposals in terms of their epistemological perspective. In addition, the article examines the currently missed opportunities of Weber’s concept and theorizing, in particular, the paradox of sociological and philosophical discourses, the study of economic action, etc. The author using a wide range of analysts and concepts of Western (E. Troeltsch, J. Habermas, J. Kaube, W. Schluchter, S. Kalberg, T. Schwinn, H. Joas, J. Vahland, K. Palonen) and post-Soviet (Yu Davydov, L. Titarenko, S. Zolyan, T. Dmitriev) sociologists and philosophers, as well as analyzing a number of works of the German philosopher and sociologist himself, demonstrates the heuristic potential of Weber’s developments in various dimensions. The topics of the origins and roots of the Weberian concept, its methodology of science, the social status of science from Weber’s point of view, the place of enchantment in social and epistemological processes, the relationship between motive and meaning, the problem of administrative power and utility, human rights in Weber’s optics and macrohistorical logic in his research are touched upon. The author also draws attention to the connection between We ber’s socio-political and worldview position with his epistemological developments, his scientific and academic activities. Analogies are drawn between the situations of the early XX and early XXI centuries with the demonstration of the possibilities of Weber’s experience in the modern socio-cultural and historical situation.

Max Weber’s last in his life publications give grounds to correct the traditional notions of the ethics of responsibility as purely calculative and one that subordinates the ethical goal to the right means of achieving it and the strictness of its observance. For Weber devotion to certain values is ultimately the basis of any possible ethics: in the ethics of conviction, this devotion is contrasted with taking into account all the results of the ethical act, and in the ethics of responsibility these results seek to take into account what should make certain values more reliable. Passionate commitment to political goals that express the interests of the community, rather than the selfish and vain intentions of the politician is a solid basis for the responsibility of the politician. The passionate pursuit of truth directs the scientist’s well-thought-out research program. In economics, the pursuit of personal gain, which is inherent for the “economic man”, requires consideration of the common economic good both for those with whom the man makes his business and for the community, which is his lifeworld and creates the necessary conditions for any possible economic activity. In any social sphere, each social system has its own logic of calculating success, but each time this calculation involves respecting and protecting the basic values for this system. In everyday life we observe numerous deviations from this clear and transparent logic of the ethics of responsibility, which create the illusion of its dysfunction. Similarly, insincere and inconsistent adherence to declared beliefs can give the wrong impression of the whole ethics of conviction. It is these deviations from the intrinsic integrity of the ethics of responsibility and the ethics of persuasion that create the false impression of them as mutually exclusive behavioral strategies. In their conscientious pursuit, the ethics of conviction and the ethics of responsibility complement each other. The formalism of the ethics of responsibility makes sense only for a stricter and more impartial protection of the values that are important to the adherents of this ethic. This formalism is a denial only of all other, irrelevant values, and not a designation of responsibility for a particular ethical commitment as a value-empty, indifferent form. Weber points to the prospect of recognition as a path to a collective ethic of responsibility in its positive sense — as a conscious commitment by a community of like-minded peop le to commit to values that are significant to them.

The article explicates the significance of M. Weber’s works for understanding of calling as an important world view idea of the European culture. The author observes Weber’s analysis of forming of the notion of calling in the times of ancient Egypt state and Judaic captivity as well as in the Old Testament and its interpretations by M. Luther. Particularly significant for the understanding of social processes during the Reformation in Europe and then in America became Weber’s analysis of the transformation of the religious meaning of calling as “task” and “mission” of a man in the world into the motivation for a practical professional activity. The study shows the ways of implementation of Weber’s theory of social action and political leadership within the concept of calling. The internal collision of the experience of calling is explicated by the examples of charismatic leadership, responsibility of a politician and ethos of a scientist. Combination of affective motivation, value and target oriented rationality in the calling forms the problem for a decision, although this complexity is a driving force of the realization of calling by a person. The philosophical and theological substratum of the Weber’s concept of calling is his looking for the integration of temporal and eternal dimensions in human existence. Calling as an idea of post-reformational European culture serves for finding and realization of the meaning of personal life as well as for legitimation of social action. Especially this idea grounds the possibility and necessity of conciliation of the ethics of conviction and the ethics of responsibility in individual as well as in social existence and morality.

The article, based on the work “Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism” explores the concept of «capitalism» by Max Weber, as well as a critique of capitalism itself based on the texts of Walter Benjamin and Giorgio Agamben. All three authors have different views on the nature of capitalism. If Weber is positive about capitalism, Benjamin and Weber see it as a danger. Weber approaches the issue from the point of view of Protestant practice, Benjamin and Agamben see capitalism as a parasite that uses Christian theology for its own useful purposes. Weber writes about the “spirit” of capitalism, Benjamin and Agamben write about capitalism as a form of religion. Weber wrote that «unbridled lust» is by no means identical with capitalism, much less its «spirit». Weber characterizes capitalism through such virtues as honesty, punctuality, diligence, moderation. Benjamin suggested that «Christianity during the Reformation did not contribute to the advent of capitalism, but was transformed into capitalism». He writes that capitalism is perhaps the most extreme of all religious cults, because it is based on a purely psychological connection to the object being fetishized. This cult, devoid of ideology or theology, exists solely through the continuous performance of its rituals — the purchase of goods and their consumption. Agamben asks very important question: “if capitalism is a religion, how do we interpret it in terms of faith? What does capitalism believe in?” He writes that capitalism is a religion based on faith. Capitalism is not simply the secularization of the Protestant faith. Agamben writes that capitalism is a religion where faith and credit replace God. Ever since money became a pure form of trust, capitalism has become a religion in which money is the God.

The article emphasises that Max Weber’s works, counselled by Bohdan Kistiakivskyi and dedicated to the analyses of revolutionary events of 1905 in the Russian Empire, contain somewhat controversial conclusions. On the one hand, a prominent German thinker believed that Russian social-reformist liberal democracy has embarked on the path of self-renunciation by virtue of the fact that its only historical chance laid within the system of zemstvo and under the conditions of the implementation of a way more moderate agricultural programme than the one advocated by cadet liberalism. On the other hand, he substantiated a view that Russian society turned to the Western European model, renouncing patriarchal “agrarian communism” and narodnichestvo (Russian populism). The comparison between Weber’s and Kistiakivskyi’s standpoints is then made, as of thinkers who, together with Simmel and Sombart, considered social relations in terms of social rationalisation. The convergence of views of these theorists is demonstrated through a deliberately positive attitude to anti-centralism of Mykhailo Drahomanov, criticism of the democratic intelligentsia radicalisation, and condemnation of its pan-moralism (focus on the total struggle for “truth”; non-recognition of ethical neutrality in assessments; assumption that human consciousness is focalised around ethics). The difference is said to be particularly demonstrated by the fact that Bohdan Kistiakivskyi was much less concerned with the role of the Protestant-Reformation factor in the genesis of liberal ideology. The article instantiates that sectarian Protestant puritanism, especially the heterodoxy of Protestant ethics of the Reformation, can be characterised as a phenomenon with a fundamentally dual and ambivalent nature. The aforementioned phenomenon formed a dual causal connection with both the “spirit of capitalism” and the “spirit of agrarian communism” condemned by Weber. That is the worldview of the bourgeois-liberal social class as well as the socially disadvantaged groups of the peasantry. Some of Weber’s references to Müntzer (f.e., that peasant riots headed by Thomas Müntzer had a decisive influence on the evolution of Luther’s views) allow us to believe that Weber himself understood the full extent of the ideological ambiguity of the Protestant phenomenon.

The paper offers an interpretation of one of the most controversial concepts of Max Weber: the plebiscitary leader democracy (Führerdemokratie). In particular, it considers Weber’s views on the role of parliament and his assessment of democracy. The question of why the types of legitimate domination do not include democratic legitimacy is discussed, and the author also shows the connection between the conception of plebiscitary democracy and Weber’s theory of bureaucracy.The presentation is not limited to the historical and philosophical analysis of Weber’s views. The main goal of the article is to show how the scientist’s ideas have again become relevant in modern politics. Weber’s concept of plebiscitary democracy is applicable both to analyzing the distortion caused by the crisis of traditional party politics in established democracies and to describing modern personalistic regimes, the legitimacy of which popular elections of a national leader confirm.

Modern science is increasingly focused on research that solves specific technological problems. In the world literature there are different, but generally similar, names for such studies. For example, German and Russian researchers use the term «problem-oriented research», the names  «mission-oriented research», research as a response to «great challenges» and «frontier research», «science mode 2» are also used. In Ukraine, particularly in the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the name «targeted research programs» and «targeted scientific (scientific and technical) projects» are used.The article analyzes features of targeted research and the status of the obtained knowledge. It emphasizes their direct involvement in the social sphere — economic, political, social relations in general, because they are the basis of modern technology and their development is interested in the general public — producers and consumers of material goods. The knowledge obtained in these studies is knowledge «to order», which requires a solution to the relationship between basic and applied research, the principles of professional activity of scientists, «academic freedoms», changes in epistemological, socio-humanitarian principles of science as a social institution.In the professional activity of a scientist, the praxeologization of science requires an ori- entation on the humanity of the produced knowledge, which, in fact, is a combination of knowledge about nature with knowledge about human. In this case, the scientist must be an expert in related disciplines. The organizers of targeted research solve this situation through the collective implementation of research, or, as expressed by R. Florida, the use of «social intelligence». At the same time, the latter requires from the scientist, as a specialist, not only purely professional competencies but also individual psychological skills of work (creativity) in an interdisciplinary team (mutual assistance, tolerance, empathy, etc.) and interaction with the transdisciplinary community. Otherwise, the profession of a scientist becomes socially en- gaged in terms of competencies and activities, and the leader in the research team performs moderative rather than directive functions.Although targeted research programs are becoming widespread, leading in solving urgent practical problems, but in the scientific field, a balance must be maintained between research «to order» and research that will be the basis for future development of science and society.

This issue of Philosophical Thought publishes materials from the seminar "Laboratory of Scientific Translation," which was devoted to discussing the Ukrainian translation of Pierre Bourdieu's work "Pascal Meditations." On June 30, 2020, the seminar took place at the Institute of Philosophy of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. G.S. Frying pans with the support of the International Renaissance Foundation and Tempora Publishing House. The text of the Ukrainian translation was presented by the scientific editor of the work Serhiy Yosypenko. Oksana Yosypenko, the translator of the work, took part in preparing the printed version of the presentation of the translated text. The experts were Iryna Slavinska and Oleksiy Panych. Vakhtang Kebuladze moderated the seminar.