Abstract: The article deals with the comparative analysis of the projects of the science of science (Naukovedenie/Naukoznanie) proposed by the Soviet philosopher I. A. Borichesky and by the Polish-American philosopher and sociologist F. Znaniecki . The author points out that both projects with similar tasks arose almost simultaneously in the 1920s in different socio-economic and political contexts. To analyze the projects, the author uses the concept of social and cognitive institutionalization proposed by R. Whitley. To consider the social institutionalization of science about science, the author gives the information about Polish and Soviet/Russian organizations for the science studies created at the beginning of the XXth century. The author gives an analysis of cognitive institutionalization based on the reconstruction of F. Znaniecki's and I. A. Borichevsky's projects. The article concludes that Znaniecki and Borichevsky proposed projects of a completely new science, the subject of which should be science itself. In these projects, science Naukovedenie/Naukoznanie were understood as an independent science, irreducible to any other field of scientific research. It was assumed that Naukovedenie/Naukoznanie consider science in all its diversity. The author shows that what is important in the projects of Znaniecki and Borichevsky is the idea of the practical application of science of science. The author for the first time in the research literature analyzes the little - known project proposed by F. Znaniecki, linking it with the general intellectual context of the epoche when it appeared. The novelty of the article also includes a comparison of the ideas of I. A. Borichevsky and F. Znaniecki.

Abstract: This article is dedicated to examination of the interpretation of socialism suggested by A. D. Gradovsky – prominent representative of the Russian conservative liberalism. The goal of this research lies in identification of peculiarities of the criticism of socialism in Gradovsly’s writings and specificity of his liberal doctrine on the state and society in the context of the Russian anti-nihilistic literature of the XIX century. A more general research task is to explore the specificity of the Russian classical liberalism in its polemic with the socialist and conservative political doctrines. The author’s main contribution consists in the proof that A. D. Gradovsky understood socialism and classical liberalism, associated with the tradition of metaphysical rationalism, as the two identically destructive political doctrines with the shared philosophical origins. The author demonstrated that according to Gradovsky, the classical liberalism prioritizes the idea of individuality, while socialism underlines the idea of community against individuality. As a counterbalance to these two extremes, Gradovsky puts forth his theory of progressive nation, which suggests an organic synthesis of the principle of unity (community) alongside individuality that combines unity and plurality. The novelty of this research lies in determination of correlation between the concept of A. D. Gradovsky and the philosophy of romanticism, which leans on perception of the historicity of existence and focuses on the significance of national element within the structure of the state.

Abstract: The subject of this article is the comparison of the philosophy of freedom in its relation to the philosophy of state and society in the Russian and Western European classical liberalism. This comparative analysis in aimed ad identification of specificity of the Russian liberalism as a peculiar tradition within the framework of pan-European liberal movement. Based on interpretation of the concept of freedom within the framework of European liberalism, the author highlights the three traditions of European liberalism: Anglo-French that reduces freedom to its external manifestations; German that focuses on the dialectics of external and internal freedom; and Russian tradition of the liberal philosophy of freedom. The main conclusion lies in the proof of succession between the liberal philosophy of John Locke, Enlighteners and John Stuart Mill, which leads to the author’s assumption that the pinnacle of educational understanding of freedom is the liberalism of J. S. Mill. The author’s contribution to the study of problematic of the history of liberal philosophy is the determination in the philosophy – the chief theoretician of the Russian liberalism of the XIX century – B. N. Chicherin of the two new meanings of the concept of freedom, which are absent in the German philosophy of tradition that Chicherin leans upon: the social freedom and the freedom reproved in the absolute personal nature that may be referred to as spiritual. The article concretizes the interrelation between the philosophy of freedom and the philosophy of state: the Western liberal philosophy of state is interpreted as a mechanicalism, while the Russian interpretation of state is understood as teleological.