The article explores the context and conceptual foundations of doxology - new project of epistemology proposed by Swedish professor Mats Rosengren. He reinterprets the basic concepts of epistemology, which were formed in the times of Plato and Aristotle. Swedish scholar is trying to rebuild the philosophy of knowledge, based on the updated system of initial abstractions. He inverts the traditional oppositions: knowledge (episteme) vs. opinion (doxa), philosophy vs. rhetoric. Thus, he takes the position of rhetorical philosophy, conceptually close to the (...) positions of the Greek sophists-rhetoricians. Rosengren gives a doxological interpretation of the Protagoras thesis about a human as a measure of all things. According to this account, human - it's all mankind; and the essence of humans, from the standpoint of the ancient Greeks, is human mind-logos. Rosengren thinks that protagorean approach, basal for doxology, has great heuristic potential. The heart of this approach is that all human knowledge is doxical, is not epistemic. And the task of doxology - to find out how we, humans, as social beings, really create the knowledge that can be examined as truth. (shrink)

M. Rosengren developed doxology as an 'other' take on epistemology, as teaching about how we actually do create the knowledge that we need. He has chosen to call his epistemic stance doxological in order to emphasise that all knowledge is doxic knowledge, thus turning the seminal Platonic distinction between doxa (beliefs, opinions) and episteme (objective, eternal knowledge) upside down.

Dmitri Nikulin extends his earlier study of oral dialogue (On Dialogue [Lexington, 2006]) to an investigation of dialectic, moving from a narrative of its development in Plato and the history of philosophy (ch.s 1-3) through a renewed phenomenological account of oral dialogue (ch.s 4-5) to a critique, from the perspective of oral dialogue, of the limitations of written dialectic (ch. 6). I take up some of the provocations of his bold and open-ended argument. Does his own “writing against writing” (...) constitute a performative contradiction, and if so, does this attest his critique of the limitations of dialectic or exhibit, in the elicitative force of its irony, the transcending of these limitations? How, if at all, may we reconcile Nikulin’s radical claim that oral dialogue is the very mode of being human with the drive of the turn to written dialectic to understand being itself and its relation to being human? Just insofar as the virtues distinctive of written dialectic — above all, precision, systematic elaboration, and universality — move the philosopher to suspend oral dialogue in its essential attention to a particular other and to the “who” that one emerges as for this other, may this very suspension also constitute a phase within ongoing oral dialogue? Are the last words of the “(Dialectical) Conclusion” with which Nikulin paradoxically closes his critique of dialectic really just the opening words of a conversation that the attentive reader’s very being moves him to pursue? (shrink)

Dmitri Nikulin extends his earlier study of oral dialogue (On Dialogue [Lexington, 2006]) to an investigation of dialectic, moving from a narrative of its development in Plato and the history of philosophy (ch.s 1-3) through a renewed phenomenological account of oral dialogue (ch.s 4-5) to a critique, from the perspective of oral dialogue, of the limitations of written dialectic (ch. 6). I take up some of the provocations of his bold and open-ended argument. Does his own “writing against writing” (...) constitute a performative contradiction, and if so, does this attest his critique of the limitations of dialectic or exhibit, in the elicitative force of its irony, the transcending of these limitations? How, if at all, may we reconcile Nikulin’s radical claim that oral dialogue is the very mode of being human with the drive of the turn to written dialectic to understand being itself and its relation to being human? Just insofar as the virtues distinctive of written dialectic — above all, precision, systematic elaboration, and universality — move the philosopher to suspend oral dialogue in its essential attention to a particular other and to the “who” that one emerges as for this other, may this very suspension also constitute a phase within ongoing oral dialogue? Are the last words of the “(Dialectical) Conclusion” with which Nikulin paradoxically closes his critique of dialectic really just the opening words of a conversation that the attentive reader’s very being will move him to pursue? (shrink)

The heated debates and severe conflicts between the atomists and the anti-atomists of the latter half of the nineteenth century are well known to the historian of science. The position of Dmitrii Ivanovich Mendeleev towards these nineteenth century debates on atomism will be studied in this paper. A first attempt will thus be offered to reconcile Mendeleev’s seemingly contradictory comments and ambiguous standpoints into one coherent view.

Sber Science Award 2023 winner in the “Digital Universe” category, full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Head of the Chair of Computational Technology and Modeling of the Department of Computational Mathematics and Cybernetics of Moscow State University, Director of the Marchuk Institute for Computational Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Evgeny Evgenyevich Tyrtyshnikov dedicated his lecture entitled “Dimension: Is it a curse or a blessing?” to methods of presentation of multi-dimensional data based (...) on the idea of separation of variables and to algorithms that even now successfully help resolve problems that are beyond the capabilities of supercomputers. -/- The lecture was followed by a panel discussion attended by: Evgeny Evgenyevich Tyrtyshnikov, full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Director of the Institute for Computational Mathematics of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Alexander Vladimirovich Gasnikov, Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, President of Innopolis University; Gleb Gennadyevich Gusev, PhD of Physics and Mathematics, Head of Sberbank’s Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. The discussion was moderated by Albert Ruvimovich Efimov, PhD of Philosophy, Vice President, Director of the Research and Innovation Division of Sberbank. (shrink)