In this article, the author tries to present a new view on Russian emigration thinkers’ intellectual heritage and representatives of the Eurasianism movement in particular. By analyzing the concept of cultural topos and reflections of the representatives of the Eurasianism ideological trend the author concludes that Europe of the interwar period saw the formation of a special cultural topos - the cultural topos of Eurasianism.

The paper presents the content analysis of current academic studies (2010-2019), which are focused on the reinterpretation of the consequences of World War I in the aspect of the intellectuals’ responsibility. After the examination of a reasonable quantity of National bibliographic database of science citation resources, it is possible to define the key topics and present the most typical evolution of argumentation in contemporary scientific practice. As a result, the paper presents a picture of how the researchers philosophize about the interwar heritage and problematize the topics of war and the intellectuals’ role.

The paper discusses the reflection on violence by Austrian and German intellectuals of Jewish origin, in particular, H. Arendt, E. Voegelin, L. Strauss. It is shown that such phenomena as war, anti-semitism, violent actions during the First and the Second World Wars and interwar period had a significant effect on thinkers who had to reflect on the nature of violence, relying not only on historical, political and philosophical thought, but also on personal experience. As a result, the article presents an attempt to consider intellectual reflection of these thinkers in two ways - the political in violence and violence as a daily routine.

The article discusses the Marxist criticism of state ideology in Japan in the 1930s. For this purpose, three author positions of the most prominent thinkers of the time are given. The politician Katayama Sen asserts the idea of the inevitability of Japan’s entry into the war as a way of relieving social tension due to the economic crisis. The leading theorist of Marxism, Tohsaka Jun, criticizes the dominant ideology of Japanism, which he defines as spiritual fascism, based on the doctrine of militarism. And his associate Kodzai Yoshishige wrote on the dichotomy of the ideology of war and the psychology of peace.

The paper is devoted to the concept of reason in Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology. By analyzing the concepts and terminology, the author shows the specific of reason and transcendentality in phenomenology. The specific of phenomenological transcendentality is in the possibility to prescribe to it individual features in contrast to Kantian transcendentality, which is abstract, ideal and universal. This specific of transcendentality leads to the concept of reason as a “net”, which covers the whole area of mind, including thinking, feeling, willing. Therefore, phenomenological reason is divided into logical, practical and axiological. The paper presents two kinds of that specification of reason in phenomenology - parallelism (Parallelismus) and interweaving (Verflechtung). The author assumes that Husserl uses the former model to demonstrate the system relationships of the selected areas of the reason, while the latter model is responsible for describing the functioning of this system.

The paper aims to interpret the reasoning of L Laudan and J. Leplin on the inconsistency of the theses of empirical equivalence and underdetermination of the theory by data within D. Ross’s rainforest realism and D. Dennett’s real patterns concepts. Following L. Laudan and J. Leplin, the main problem is with the absolutization of the idea that the only significant form of evidential support of a theory is the empirical confirmation of its consequences (consequentialism). We believe that the conception “to save the phenomena” (P. Duhem), as a possible alternative strategy of evidential support, could be connected with the narrative type of explanation. The definition of “perspective” that defines a pattern in terms of the “information channel” concept ensures that the explanation within D. Ross’s conception is not a deductive argument, it is precisely a “story telling” that makes it possible to single out what is significant in the intended explanation. At the same time, the non-consequentialist nature of the evidential support of the pattern (that is defined with respect to the relations between data) is justified by the fact that the pattern is real only if it contains information about another pattern, reproduces only the structural characteristics of reality, and represents the probable causes of the phenomena explained via the idea of “natural classification” within “to save the phenomena” conception.

The article is devoted to the concept of context in historical-philosophical contextualism which is examined using the example of M. Bevir’s approach. Bevir’s criticism of the notion of context in predecessors’ theories presupposes a semantical shift, which is the main topic of the article. As the most important characteristic of Bevir’s approach the indeterminism of explanation in contrast to the determinism of understanding is singled out. We show that this characteristic stems from Bevir’s rejection of the interpretational semantic paradigm. This permits him to understand context as something that does not fix understanding but rather poses a problem demanding a creative solution.

It is established that Theodore’s anti-religious views were closely connected with his moral and ethical teaching. It is shown that all known ancient atheists, except Theodore, were inconsistent in their criticism of religious views. It is established that Theodore’s views on the gods and religion were formed in the conditions of the deepening crisis of the Greek polis and the formation of Hellenistic monarchies. It is concluded that Theodore was the most consistent and radical ancient atheist.

The article attempts to reconstruct the system of political views of Socrates in the context of history of Athenian political parties in the second half of the 5th century BC. According to the author, this approach can overcome the difficulties associated with the scarcity and, often, the unreliability of early sources about Socrates. The article reveals the political background of the formation of the teachings of Socrates, the motivation for him to take a certain political position at different times, and, above all, his anti-democratic attitude.

The article is devoted to identifying the causes of anti-religious sentiments in Italy at the turn of the 18-19^th centuries. The authors point to the reasons for the apologetic writings of Italian theologians. Their views had a very beneficial effect on the mental and in particular on the religious movement in Italy. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the situation in Italy in the 18-19^th centuries. Based on this analysis, the authors conclude that because of the constant confrontation with the Italian government for power and their interests, apologists for Christianity, who belonged to the clergy of the Catholic Church, caused hostility towards the Catholic Church among ordinary Italians. In the course of the study, the idea of a significant impact of this situation on the spread of anti-Christian ideas in Italy at the turn of the 18-19^th centuries was substantiated. And the national liberation movement for the unification of Italy, which was gaining momentum at that time, opened up a free field for the dissemination of various anti-church and atheistic teachings.

The methodology of history determines what the authors will write in their books. The methodology of history is a subject of social philosophy. However, after analyzing the leading works printed before 1955 on the history of the Urals and Siberia of the 17^th century, we came to the conclusion that historians did not mechanically illustrate the conclusions of social philosophy. At the end of the 19^th century V. I. Lenin, relying on Karl Marx, drew a concept of the “new period of Russian history”. In the 1930s this scheme has become mandatory for all Russian historians. However, it quickly became clear that not all of its elements could be found in the Siberian history of the 17^th century. The reasons may be related to the lack of sufficient autonomy for the merchants, great tax oppression, opportunities to benefit from social status, and military operations. Retaining full loyalty to the official thesis, in their concrete studies, the historians of Siberia have proved to be great empiricists and preferred to point out historical facts even if the facts did not fit into the official concept.

After the rhetoric has lost its disciplinary specifics, in the XX century there was a wave of renewed interest in it, expressed in the development of the study of argumentation as an independent field of knowledge. The origin of the rhetorical field in the theory of argumentation was initiated by Ch. Perelman. He rejects the strict logical form of the construction of the argument, since it does not take into account the goals, conditions, means and context of the argument. He examines argumentation as a process of interaction between the orator and the audience, and identifies and analyzes techniques that lead to conviction as a result. The main task of Ch. Perelman consists in improvement of the communicative practices in the society by justifying the indissoluble unity of the concepts of the audience and argumentation. The specific features of the rhetorical theory of argumentation consist in the concepts of argumentation as a unified network of arguments, a new understanding of the audience and its typology, a shift in the assessment of the quality of public communication from the orator to the audience, the concept of the starting point of the argument and the value of argument.

The article is devoted to the comparison of the social ontology of John Searle with the social theory of Emile Durkheim. It was shown that the approaches of Searle and Durkheim have a number of similar features. These common features are the rejection of reductionism of the collective to the individual, attention to language as one of the most important conditions of the emergence of social reality, the recognition of unawareness and automatism in accepting the rules of social interaction by its participants. However, there are certainly differences between the conceptions of Searle and Durkheim, and therefore the possibility of influence of analytic philosophy represented by Searle on social theory is obvious. As the basis from which this discrepancy arises, the author points to the understanding of science and the level of objectivity of scientific research that have changed since by the time of Searle.

A detailed assessment of the analysis of methodological problems of the history of philosophy is given, which is essential in A. A. Krotov's book "Philosophy of the history of philosophy in France (the problem of laws in the development of intellectual culture)" (Moscow: Moscow state University Publ., 2018). As one of the features that determine the specificity of this book, it is indicated that this is the first Russian-language generalizing understanding of the history of French philosophy, considered as a phenomenon of intellectual culture of France from the early Modern to the present time. At the same time, the main attention is paid to the identification and analysis in the reviewed book of Krotov of the laws of the development of intellectual culture in France of the considered historical time. And the main result of this analysis is that Krotov manages to show convincingly how the concepts of French philosophers are embedded in the intellectual history of France. Marked by unacceptable for Krotov prevalent today positions the consent with the death of philosophy. As the main advantage of his book under review, it is noted that the French history of philosophy is presented as a conceptual self-assessment carried out by philosophy itself.