Abstract: The paper considers the specific lines of the ontology of Cornelius Castoriadis in a triple context of his thought: polemics with Heidegger and Ricoeur, but also the reception of Castoriadis' project of modernity by Habermas. The author aims to elucidate historical-philosophical meaning of these debates and receptions through the special problems of the philosophy of history: teleology, succession, determination, creation, innovation, re-production, memory and imagination. The author used hermeneutical and intertextual analyse as methods. The results of authors' work are as follows: 1) author showed that Castoriadis polemized with some cases of reception of Heidegger's thought, especially in regard of Ancient Greek civilization, 2) author showed the limits of Castoriadis' thought: his radical atheism, social monadism, refusal to think communication, 3) author showed also the advantages of Castoriadis' thought of history: his multiculturalism, his claim to restaure genuine philosophy and democracy, critics of determinism, scientism, cultural egoism.

Abstract: The subject of this research is conditions for the creation of nontrivial classifications for the historical-philosophical analysis of the phenomenon of French “post-structuralism”. The author believes that the term “post-structuralism” is a historical-philosophical abstraction insofar that the researchers do not take into consideration a specificity of the thought of French philosophers in the space between modernism and classicism. The article also examines the instances when the “post-structuralists” (Foucault, Castoriadis) address the problem of classification and systematization of philosophical knowledge based on the attempt to classify sciences that has been carried out in French rationalism by Goblot and Meyerson. The research employs the historical-philosophical methods for rationalizing the project of “nontrivial” philosophical classification as a uniform intellectual process, although it is yet to be discerned and finalized. The novelty of this work consists in the fact that the author not only applied the methods of nontrivial classification developed in cognitive linguistics (Lakoff) and theoretical biology (Meien) to the historical-philosophical process, but made an attempt to demonstrate that the development of such heuristic methods is possible within the framework of the history of philosophy as a discipline. The author examined the “archaeological” analytics of biology of Foucault and the concept of social time in of Castoriadis.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the historical-philosophical and polemical context of philosophical reasoning on the history of French philosopher of Greek descent Cornelius Castoriadis (1922-1997). The philosopher builds a complicated polemical model that vividly responses to all attempts to determines society, being, history, and a human. Even such prominent philosophers of the XX century, such as M. Heidegger, J. Habermas. And P. Ricoeur, who do not show prejudice attitude towards philosophical knowledge, become subjected to critical analysis. The scientific novelty consists in attracting the new to the Russian audience historical-philosophical material, as well as a distinct attempt to reproduce of such polemics and debated that took place within the French intellectual environment of the late XX century. However, the author did not pursue the task of historical and biobibliographical description; the emphasis was made on the so-called return to the origins of the philosophy of history, revival of philosophical reasoning on history based on the examined material, demonstration of the complicated, aporetic, heterogeneous and heuristic nature of relationship between philosophy, humanities and social disciplines. The conclusion is made that the work of Castoriadis mostly represents philosophical criticism of theoretical grounds of humanities and social disciplines, rather than a poststructuralist philosophy of history; but this criticism, studied in the context of philosophical thought, acquires an independent scientific meaning.

Abstract: This article is dedicated to fundamentals of the social criticism of the prominent French philosopher Michel Foucault(1924-1986). The author begins with the “duality” of non-European subject, which on one hand, manifests as the carrier of the “relation to truth” appearing in “techniques” and “technologies” of itself; while on the other hand, represents a subject of spiritual self-analysis and “care of itself”. The author believes that such duality justifies the evolution of Foucauldian interpretation of power: from disciplinary concept of power, Foucault shifts towards the concept of “biopower”, outlining the field of the future social criticism. But does the subject, in Foucault’s opinion, becomes “ineffective” as a subject of social action? This work carries mostly a historical-philosophical character, leaning on the comparison of Foucault’s texts of various periods, as well as some of his successors (Laval, Budet, Balibar), and scholars (Bourdain, Metzger, Pizzorno). The author also touches upon the questions of history and theory of sociology. The scientific novelty consists in the attempt of rationalize Foucault’s philosophical thought in a particular context of scientific paradox that introduces a complex dialectical and critical social theory, never created by the author. The subject contains not only the “technology of truth”, but also “spirituality”; the power – not only “disciplinarity”, but also “governmentality”. It is concluded that, according to Foucault, the ineffectiveness of social action at the present day functionally depends on the potential intellectual criticism of the fundamentals of modernity. Refraining from the social action, the “ineffective subject” commits the process of critical conceptualization.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the philosophical heritage of the prominent Greek-French philosopher, economist, and psychoanalyst Cornelius Castoriadis (1922-1997). The author gives particular attention to the plots of his works related to the problem of such philosophical interpretation of the historical process, in which context a human does not manifest as an alienated subject, but rather a conscious, creative being. Along the way, the philosopher faces Marxism, Sartre’s existentialism, and structuralism of Lévi-Strauss, subjecting them to critical analysis and defending similar principles, kindred to the Greek democratic traditions. Hi critically repels scientism, naturalism, individualism, Eurocentrism, functionalism, positivism and determinism, which in his opinion, obscure the true content of all three methods. The author explored a number of theses and texts of Castoriadis, in comparison with the texts of some representatives of Marxism (Plekhanov, Lenin), existentialism (Sartre), and structuralism (Lévi-Strauss, Althusser, Foucault). Leaning on the study of the evolution of French postwar thought, the author draws the independent conclusions on Castoriadis’ methodology. The scientific novelty consists in the attempt to portray Castoriadis as a unique reformer of the philosophy of history. The philosopher manifests not only as a consecutive critic of Marxism, existentialism and structuralism, but also as an independent thinker, who revived the dwindling interest towards the philosophy of history. It is underlined that the works of Castoriadis represent a cycle of studies on the philosophy of history; and in the center of the living historical process is collective creativity, the “magma” of social reality and social imaginary.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the social heritage of the prominent French philosopher Cornelius Castoriadis (1922-1997). The authors gives special attention to the plots of his works that are referred to the problem of such philosophical interpretation of the historical process, in which a human would not resemble an alienated subject, but rather a conscious, creative being. On this path, the philosopher meets Marxism, existentialism of Sartre, and structuralism of Lévi-Strauss, which he critically comprehends, upholding his kindred principles related to the Greek democratic traditions. He critically rejected scientism, naturalism, individualism, Eurocentrism, functionalism, positivism and determining, which in his opinion, eclipse the true content of all of the three methodologies. The author reviews a number of theses and text of Castoriadis, comparing with the text of some representatives of Marxism (Lenin, Plekhanov), existentialism (Sartre), and structuralism (Lévi-Strauss, Foucault, Althusser). The scientific novelty consists in the attempt to present Castoriadis as a so-called reformer of the philosophy of history. He configures not only as a successive critic of Marxism, existentialism and structuralism, but also as an independent thinker who revived the fading interest to the philosophy of history. The main conclusion is defined by the fact that the works of Castoriadis represents a cycle of studies on the philosophy of history, and in the center of the live historical process is a creative group of people a monolith of the “magma” of social reality and social ideality.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the impact of Marxism upon the interpretation of the writings of Michel Foucault in the works of Etienne Balibar. The authors believe that the foundation of political philosophy in France is the syncretic and polydisciplinary; it answers the urgent challenges of time in the field on the intellectual-scientific activity. The research area is interdisciplinary by definition, touching on the questions of social philosophy and theory of politics. Reciting the works of M. Foucault through the works of K. Marx manifests as one of the paramount stages of philosophical career of E. Balibar. The scientific novelty is associated with an attempt to receive a more objective perspective to the evolution of social and political philosophy in France as it is common to believe due to the opposition between modernity and postmodernity. Based on the reasoning of E. Balibar, presented in some of his major works, the authors can draw an unambiguous conclusion: the influence of M. Foucault’s ideas upon E. Balibar’s interpretation of the works of K. Marx allowed Balibar to convert many of the issues viewed by the traditional Marxism in terms of the economic-political discourse into the socio-ethical discourse. Such method helped Balibar to feel a living connection between Marx and modernity, doubting the established stamps of Marxism itself, as well as the popular “anti-Marxism”.

Abstract: Modern philosophers often not only refer to the classical studies, but also are impacted by the philosophers of Classical Antiquity. At the same time, the two strategies are possible: hermeneutic that recognizes the fundamental importance of classical civilization revealed through interpretation of its leading texts, and structural-anthropological that aspires to elucidate the succession of civilization. The subject of this research is examination of the presence of both strategies in comparison of interpretation of the classical (Ancient Greek) civilization in the works of two distinct philosophers of the XX century:  Cornelius Castoriadis (1922-1997) and Merab Mamardashvili (1930-1990). The basis for such comparison serves the attention of the Greek-Frencj and Soviet-Georgian thinkers to the fundamental questions of studying the Ancient Greek civilization: shift from myth to logos, emergence of philosophy and democratic institutions, role of tragedy, religion, and civil valor and laws of self-consciousness and self-determination of the Ancient Greeks. The following conclusions were made: 1) philosophy of the XX century, particularly Castoriadis and Mamardashvili, denies to see in Classical Antiquity a naïve and contemplative stage of European civilization, referring to the ancients as an independent source of social cognition and ontological inquiry; 2) for both thinkers is became impossible to analyze only the rational aspect of classical philosophy, not taking into account the mythology and tragic worldview of the Ancient Greeks, as well as the specificity of their society; 3) examining the phenomenon of “Greek miracle”, Castoriadis focuses on the collective symbolic mechanisms of the emergence of Ancient Greek democratic institutions, while Mamardashvili is interested in the individual symbolism of the Ancient Greek philosophical reasoning. The author underlines that the reconstruction of the Ancient Greek mentality unambiguously contributed to the formation of professional and sociocultural identity of the modern intellectuals.

Abstract: The subject of this article is the definition of episteme as a concept. The author is not limited by the original interpretation of the French philosopher Michel Foucault (1926-1954) in his works of “archeological” period. The goal is to demonstrate that the definition of episteme manifested in the work “The Order of Things” as basic for structuring of the social ontology that had never been created by the philosopher. Thus, the author considers the definition of episteme as a separate socio-philosophical concept applied in the philosophy of history and philosophy of language. It is underlined that even Foucault himself does not have an unequivocal understanding of the heuristic nature of episteme. The author suggest to view “episteme” not as a post-metaphysical positivity, but a path to cognition of social institutions, language and history in their overall development. Using the methods of historical-philosophical and linguo-philosophical analysis, an attempt is made to penetrate the essence of episteme as a concept that is foremost understood as the bases of the “unwritten” by Foucault ontology of the socio-humanitarian knowledge. Among the main results of research are the following: 1) analysis of evolution of the definition of episteme in Foucault’s works from the standpoint of socio-philosophical heuristics; 2) historical-philosophical determination of specificity of the notion of “episteme” in its epistemological and socio-philosophical meaning; 3) applicability of this notion for the philosophical-historical and socio-philosophical analysis. The article also demonstrated that it would be inappropriate to associate Foucault’s “archeology” exceptionally with the theory of discourses, while putting the “episteme” alongside the attempts to understand the scientific rationality leaning on the data of the history of sciences. A hypothesis is made that episteme can be considered a heuristic concept for the establishment of socio-philosophical ontology.