Abstract: This article is dedicated to analysis of the phenomenon of consent with yourself. Leaning on the ideas. H. Arendt, the author analyzes various aspects of consent with yourself, as well as their interconnection. This phenomenon is viewed in three aspects: 1. attitude of a subject towards himself (psychology); 2. “Socratic” thinking as inner speech; 3. moral act. All three aspects of this phenomenon are based on the concept of “Socratic” thinking as an internal dialogue; therefore, special attention is turned to examination of its peculiarities. A comparative analysis is conducted on the “Socratic” thinking and other concepts of thinking, namely M. Heidegger’s. Consent with yourself in each corresponding aspect has the following meaning: 1. Positive attitude toward yourself reflected in self-regard. It is demonstrated that consent is only one-sided attitude, thus its more accurate characteristic would be self-regard, rather than “friendship with yourself”. Self-regard can stem from the experience of reasoning as a conversation with yourself on your thoughts and actions; 2. A condition of thinking, namely as consent in thought (non-contradiction) and with thought. Consent with yourself is not reduced to the logical law of non-contradiction. As a manifestation of existential process of thinking, it is not a formalized procedure and depends on the personal attitude and values of the subject. It is assumed that self-regard as a manifestation of consent is impossible without the judgment of internal dialogue; 3. Leaning on the ideas of H. Arendt, the author outlines the possible interpretation of consent in thinking as an ethical principle or internal standard of conscience, spreading to the actions of an individual.The conclusion is made that the phenomenon of consent with yourself has full significance only for the “Socratic” thinking, which makes responsible a thinker himself, rather than history, world spirit or being.

Abstract: This article is dedicated to the analysis of the concept of nihilism in the philosophy of Nietzsche and Heidegger, as well as ethnical concept of Heidegger’s thinking. Emphasis is made on determining the multivalence of the concept of nihilism in the works of both philosophers, as well as the comprehension distinctions.  The author explores the peculiarities of Heidegger’s interpretation of metaphysics as nihilism, and analyzes the question on the essence of thinking that preponderates metaphysics. The article elucidates the ethical aspect of Heidegger’s thought to demonstrate certain aspects that, perhaps, led the philosopher to participation in the national-socialist movement. In the course of this study was used the method of comparative analysis of philosophical positions of the thinkers along with the comprehensive analysis of the existing sources of this topic. Nietzsche’s nihilism as the reconsideration of values, takes place within the categorical net of moral Platonism, only being “inverted” by Nietzsche. Therefore, his philosophy of life is the reconsideration of foundations of moral being of a human. Unlike Nietzsche, Heidegger understands nihilism as thinking that does not raise a question on the nothingness, in other words, as metaphysics. Heidegger believes that overcoming metaphysics means deepening in the thought on being. The specificity of Heidegger’s philosophy is that human, freedom, duty, and responsibility are viewed exceptionally in light of the thought on being, outside the idea of the subject of morality. Ethics is possible as a genuine “whereness” in terms of the realness of being, obedience to it. The danger of such “ethos” lies not only in the fact that the responding to being thought is subjected to deception, but also that by overcoming the metaphysics of a subject towards the initial thinking, we can lose the idea of oneself as a responsible beginning of life, when the all of the said and done is the personal choice and decision.

Abstract: The subject of the research is the concept of faith of Lev Shestov and Lev Tolstoy. The object of the research is Lev Tolstoy's religious and moral teaching and Lev Shestov's philosophy. Special attention is paid to the relationship between faith and reason, faith and morals and the difference in the philosophers' views on human's attitude to the absolute beginning of the world. The purpose of the research is to show general 'ethical' orientation of Shestov's and Tolstoy's philosophies and to analyze their subjective attitude to the world that was based on different grounds. The research methodology involves integrated analysis of sources on the research subject. The researcher has also used the method of comparative analysis. The main conclusions of the research are the following: while Shestov viewed faith and reason as mutually exclusive, Tolstoy saw faith as the proof of reason and reason as the 'way' to faith. Shestov also opposed faith to morals while Tolstoy considered fath to be an essential prerequisite for moral behavior. Nevertheless, both Shestov's and Tolstoy's philosophies in fact have the general ethical intention: Shestov views the idea of faith as the reliance of morals not as a result of the 'possible' and the 'must' restrictions but as a result of nondetermined decisions of an absolute subject. Tolstoy related the idea of morals to the highest 'Self' that was viewed as the ideal and attitude to which was created within the space of moral perfection. 

Abstract: The article is devoted to the detection of distinction of philosophical concepts of Nietzsche and Shestov. Nietzsche's and Shestov's philosophies are compared through the prism of ideas of philosophy of Nietzsche: will to power and nihilism. These ideas are fixed in the form of polar concepts, i.e. the concepts that present the two opposite points of view. So, the main thesis of Shestov's philosophy about the faith that cancels the evil previously committed seems comparable to the negative sense of these polar concepts. In the final part of the article Nietzsche's philosophy in general is comprehended through Shestov's ideas. The author sees the key to understnading the philosophy of both philosophers in thei concept of will. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the conflict between will and the past which is differently resolved by Nietzsche and Shestov. Ethics of generosity of Nietzsche and ethics of boldness of Shestov – this is how the author offers to characterize the two philosophical projects on overcoming of the powerlessness of will in relation to the necessary past. The main method of research used by the author is the comparative analysis. The author compares Nietzsche's and Shestov's philosophy involving interpretations of their ideas by Vladimir Bibikhin, Hannah Arendt and Gilles Deleuze. The novelty of the research consists in the original analysis of distinction of the two ways of thinking as they ae presented in Nietzsche's and Shestov's concepts. The distinction between reasoning and will based on Hannah Arendt's ideas correlates with the opposite understanding of the subject by Nitsshche  and Shestov. In Nietzsche's philosophy the will acts as a nigilistic concept in essence, i.e. denying self-sufficiency of life and the world in general. Overcoming nihilism of will and its powerlessness to change the past Nietzsche refuses from will in favor of a complete contemplation/acceptance of identity of and the world. Shestov's philosophy, on the contrary, presents the apology of will that through faith finds the power over the past and the world in general. The obvious antagonism shown during comparison of the two philosophers helps to better highlight the thought of each philosopher.