Methodological myth of modern actional war áctors

Authors

  • Svetlana Kachurova PhD, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy of the Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University , кандидат философских наук, доцент кафедры философии Национального юридического университета имени Ярослава Мудрого , кандидат філософських наук, доцент кафедри філософії Національного юридичного університету імені Ярослава Мудрого http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3103-3142 (unauthenticated)
  • Eugene Kachurov PhD, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences of the National Aerospace University «Kharkiv Aviation Institute» , кандидат философских наук, доцент кафедры философии и общественных наук Национального аэрокосмического университета им. Н.Е. Жуковского «ХАИ» , кандидат філософських наук, доцент кафедри філософії та суспільних наук Національного аерокосмічного університету ім. М. Є. Жуковського «ХАІ» http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1166-7359 (unauthenticated)
  • Yuriy Pokhodzilo PhD in Law, Associate Professor of the Department of State and Law of Ukraine and Foreign Countries History Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University , кандидат юридических наук, доцент кафедры истории государства и права Украины и зарубежных стран Национального юридического университета имени Ярослава Мудрого , кандидат юридичних наук, доцент кафедри історії держави і права України і зарубіжних країн Національного юридичного університету імені Ярослава Мудрого http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4797-2344 (unauthenticated)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.37772/2518-1718-2021-2(34)-12

Keywords:

philosophy, continental war, áctors of continental wars, methodology

Abstract

Problem setting. The thesis that modern war is a "war of consciousness" inevitably leads science to the problems of methodology in understanding the phenomenon of consciousness. This study shows that both the authors and the followers of the concept of modern continental wars in general reproduce a thoroughly forgotten (and in the history of philosophy has been overcome for two hundred years) its interpretation as tabula rasa - a blank slate that necessarily distorts the understanding of the real state of affairs. At the same time, the methodology developed by German classical philosophy, which culminated in Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit", reveals the true essence of both modern and historical forms of national consciousness. All this makes it possible to remove some of the tension created in the social sphere by the very formulation of the thesis about the consistent nature of modern wars.

Article’s main body. In the article the authors consider modern problems of methodology in understanding the phenomenon of consciousness. It is emphasized that the very nature of consciousness is determined by the fact that it itself in its knowledge it considers true. On the basis of a thorough analysis of scientific achievements in the field of phenomenology, the authors state that the position on modern war without opponents is filled with contradictory, inconsistent grounds. The same myth of political technologists is the statement about the nature of national self-consciousness as tabula rasa. 

Conclusions. Historically, it is possible to trace the "steps" of the development of such units of national self-consciousness, while in modern times their existence is possible either in the form of "fragments" or in the form of "repetitions" of these steps. The phenomenon of international law is intensifying everywhere, and the phenomena of bipatrism, feminism, LGBT, etc. are following it - this is the verdict of World History, which can be reborn only in the form of philosophy. And our contemporary is right, saying that "the world exists to enter the book" [22, p. 370].

References

Deleuze G., Guattari F. (1976). Rhizome. Introduction. URL: https://interconnected.org/more/2005/06/1000Plateaus00Rhizome.pdf [in English].

Hegel Phänomenologie des Geistes Stuttgart Gesamtherstellung: Reclam, Ditzingen. Printedin Germany, 1987. P. 26, 70 [in German].

Fuldaund H. F., Henrich D. (1973). Materialien zu Hegels «PhänomenologiedesGeistes». Frankfurta : Suhrkamp [in German].

Pöggeler O. (1973). Hegels Ideee iner Phänomenologie des Geistes. Freiburg: KarlAlber [in German].

Aytmatov Ch. (2005). I Dolshe veka dlitsya den. Sankt-Peterburg [in Russian].

Aristotel. (1975). Sobraniye sochineniy. (Vols 1-4; Vol. 1). Moskva [in Russian].

Brankham U. M. (1962). Provodnik. Propoved. URL: http://download.branham.org/pdf/RUS/RUS62-1014E%20A%20Guide%20VGR.pdf [in Russian].

Gegel G. V. F. (1971). Raboty raznykh let. (Vols 1–2; Vol. 2). Moskva: Mysl [in Russian].

Gegel G. V. F. (1937). Sochineniya. Vol. 5: Nauka Logiki [in Russian].

Gegel G. V. F. (1913). Fenomenologiya dukha. Sankt-Peterburg [in Russian].

Gegel G. V. F. (2000). Fenomenologiya dukha. Moskva : Nauka [in Russian].

Golbakh P. (1963). Sistema prirody. Ili O zakonakh mira fizicheskogo i mira dukhovnogo. Izbrannyye proizvedeniya. (Vols: 1–2; Vol. 1). Moskva: «Mysl» [in Russian].

Gromyko Yu. V: Konstsiyentalnoye oruzhiye i konstsiyentalnyye voyny. Lektsiya. URL: https://gtmarket.ru/library/articles/782 [in Russian].

Gusserl E. (2005). Filosofiya kak strogaya nauka. Izbrannyye raboty [in Russian].

Zhabotynska S. A. (2015). Usvidomlennia svidomosti: teoriia i praktyka. Buduiemo novu Ukrainu: zbirnyk konferentsii (m. Kyiv, 26-27 lystopada, 2014) – Building a new Ukraine: Proceedings of the Conference. Kyiv: Kyievo- Mohylianska akademiia, 155–171. URL: http://ekmair.ukma.edu.ua/bitstream/handle/123456789/4583/Zhabotyns%27ka_Usvidomlennya_svidomosti.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [in Ukrainian].

Kant I. (1994). Kritika chistogo razuma. Moskva: Mysl [in Russian].

Kachurova S. V. (1996). Transtsendentalnoye edinstvo natsionalnogo samosoznaniya. Kultura i zhiznennyy mir cheloveka. Kharkov: KhAI, 14-19 [in Russian].

Kachurova S. V. (2020). Fenomen relihii v sytuatsii postmodernu. Suspilstvo, liudyna, pravo v period hlobalnykh vyklykiv. O. H. Danylian (Ed.). Kharkiv: Pravo, 170–191 [in Ukrainian].

Kachurova S. V. (2019). Kachurov E. V. Defolt ideologiy. Gumanіtarniy chasopis - Humanitarian magazine, 1, 53 [in Russian].

Kachurova S. V., Kachurov Ye. V., Pokhodzilo Yu. M. (2021). Paradoksalna pryroda konstsiientalnykh viin. Pravo ta innovatsii – Law and innovation, 1 (33), 96–103 [in Ukrainian].

Korotkikh V. I. (2011). «Fenomenologiya dukha» i problema struktury sistemy filosofii v tvorchestve Gegelya. Moskva: INFA [in Russian].

Korotkikh V. I. (2016). Russkiye perevody «Fenomenologii dukha» i problema peredachi gegelevskoy mysli v sovremennom filosofskom yazyke. Filosofskaya mysl - Philosophical thought, 8, 82–92. URL: https://e-notabene.ru/fr/article_19825.html [in Russian].

Lenin V. I. (1961). Materializm i empiriokrititsizm : polnoye sobraniye sochineniy. Vol. 18. Moskva [in Russian].

Lukach G. (1987). Molodoy Gegel i problemy kapitalisticheskogo obshchestva. Moskva: Nauka [in Russian].

Marks K., Engels F. Kapital. Vol. 23. URL: http://psylib.org.ua/books/maenl01/txt12.htm [in Russian].

Pisma K. M. Miloradovich k E. L. Radlovu (1907–1925). (Publikatsiya A. V. Vostrikova). URL: http://lib2.pushkinskijdom.ru/Media/Default/PDF/ROPD/EROPD_2015/16.pdf [in Russian].

Perov Yu. V. (2010). Lektsii po istorii klassicheskoy nemetskoy filosofii. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka [in Russian].

Selivanov Yu. R. (2015). Fenomenologiya otchuzhdennogo dukha. Moskva: Ekon-inform [in Russian].

Selivanov Yu. R. (2005). Metod fenomenologii dukha: problemy i perspektivy. Doctor’s thesis. Moskva [in Russian].

Teksti fіlmіv. Stalker. URL: http://cinematext.ru/movie/stalker-1979/?page=8 [in Russian].

Shakhname. Epos. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5CgJQVEySI&ab_channel=VideoLand [in Russian].

Engels F. (1961). Anti-Dyuring. Vol. 20. Moskva [in Russian].

Published

2021-12-20