Abstract: The subject of the study is the sacred and its role in the formation of a symbol in the context of A. F. Losev's dialectical-henological approach. The authors rely on dialectical henology (the doctrine of the One) Losev's theory, developed in the theory of "the very itself" as the non-predicate basis of any thing. Such a non-predicate basis of all things and the world as a whole ("the very itself"), according to the authors, appears in the archaic consciousness and culture as sacred. Based on the analysis of sources, the article compares the ideas of the sacred in culture and the dialectic of "the very itself". According to Losev, "the very itself" cannot be identified with an unknowable thing-in-itself, but is a source of meaningful and non-meaningful in a thing and is expressed in symbols of a specific individuality. Any sign is a symbol if it has two dimensions and has both transitive and non-transitive sides. As a symbol, on the one hand, it shows the indivisible existence of the One (meanings), and, on the other hand, it expresses an undifferentiated continuous One (sacred). There are two main approaches in the history of philosophy, going back to Plato and Aristotle. In the Neoplatonic approach, the symbol is understood as the unity of transitivity and non-transitivity. The latter is associated with the expression of the transcendent in the immanent. In the Aristotelian approach, developed in the rationalist tradition, transitivity is emphasized in the symbol. Comparative historical, dialectical methods and the method of typologization are used. Based on Losev's dialectical methodology, the conclusion is made about the greatest completeness of the dialectically specific theory of the symbol. On this basis, the specificity of the human essence, which is irreducible to robotic rationalism or to bestial irrationalism, is comprehended. The example of archaic cultural practices shows symbolism, the two-dimensional nature of human nature. The profane in culture is quite transitive, the sacred is non–transitive. The symbol connects these two spheres, forms transitions from one to the other. The novelty of the work lies in the application of A.F. Losev's dialectical-henological theory of the symbol to the study of the sacred and the two-dimensional nature of both the symbol and the human essence. The transitivity and non-transitivity of the symbol are shown in their dialectical unity, which makes it possible to connect, without mixing or dissolving one into the other, the sacred and profane sides of cultural life.

Abstract: The subject of research in this article is the phenomenon of existential truth. The author relies on the distinction between epistemic and existential truth proposed by D.V. Pivovarov. The latter is the correspondence of knowledge (or being in the case of ontological truth) to the subject-object unity, human being, which is the basis of cognitive activity. The ideas related to the existential understanding of truth in the works of B. Pascal, S. Kierkegaard, M. Unamuno, H. Ortega y Gasset, L. Shestov, N.A. Berdyaev, K. Jaspers, G. Marcel, A. Camus, J.-P. Sartre and M. Heidegger are presented. "Cordiality", subjectivity, vitality, perspectivism, irrationality, creative nature, communication, personality, "rebellion", freedom, "non-concealment" of existential truth are highlighted. With the help of A.F. Losev's dialectical methodology, an attempt is made to comprehend these signs as moments of symbolism of existential truth.   The mainstay is the works of A.F. Losev, in which the symbol is understood as a communicative and interpretive expression of a transcendent essence ("the very self"). This expression is a "directly-intuitively" given generality, naturally decomposed into a number of separate singularities, which can be realized in reality and thereby become a "myth" in Losev's understanding. The myth, immanent to personal existence, is intensively experienced by a person, manifests itself in an irrational "miracle". The symbol and myth reveal the considered signs of existential truth and at the same time take into account the objective, functional sides of the truth. From the point of view of the dialectical-symbolic approach, existential truth is the correspondence of knowledge (or being) to a dialectically concrete symbolic reflection of reality, subject-object unity, which is a "directly intuitive" given in immanent personal being. The novelty of the work lies in the application of A.F. Losev's dialectical theory of the symbol to the study of the existential understanding of truth.

Abstract: The subject of this research Is the main approaches to the problem of truth and their correlation with the works of the Russian religious philosophers. The following approaches are being determined: ontological, gnoseological, existential, and relativistic (nihilistic). The ontological approach is based on the principle of oneness of reasoning and being, where the truth is authentic being. Such approach emerges on the basis of mythological reasoning.  Gnoseological approach lies in contraposition of the subject and object of cognition. Existential approach is established on the so-called reference to the circumstances preceding the subject-object demarcation. The truth is being understood as the existence or value.  Relativistic approach in its development balances the definition of truth, eventually seeing it as fiction. In the works of the Russian religious philosophers we can observe an ontological trend, in which the truth is understood as “omnibeing”. According to V. S. Solovyev, the truth is perceived in “mystical” unity of rational and irrational aspects of a subject, in unity of the subject and object of cognition. In order to reveal the inner logic of such unity, A. F. Losev refers to the neo-Platonic dialectics. At the same time, Russian religious philosophers criticize the gnoseological approach, subjective-idealistic trends of existential approach, as well as relativistic (nihilistic) approach. The conclusion is made that the Russian religious philosophy is a peculiar continuation of the ancient and medieval ontological tradition. We can also observe mythological foundations of the specificity of Russian religious philosophy.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the concept of truth in the early works of A. F. Losev. It derives from the system of fundamental concepts developed by the philosopher. On one hand, he advances the problematics of the philosophy uni-totality associated with the “integral knowledge”, symbol, name, and myth, and on the other, reconstructs and develops Neo-Platonic dialectics and applies it as the main method. The concept of truth derives from the system of Neo-Platonic dialectics in Losev’s interpretation, which represents a categorical structure of the ancient cosmos. This is why the truth is being understood in ontological sense, which is considered as the development of V. S. Soloviev’s approach who defines the truth as “uni-total Absolute”. The author formulates the definition of truth in its ontological perception. The truth is being revealed as the uni-total Absolute in itself (as ultra-absolute and ultra-wise single), for itself (as uniseparate material eidos of the name), for other (as potency manifesting towards the removal on antagonistic contradictions). In the latter, the truth is being viewed in its connection with a myth.