Abstract: The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of attempts at ontological development of the problem of Nothingness, presented in philosophical systems Leibniz and Heidegger. The article shows that despite the fundamentally different premises and strategies of thinking, as well as the obvious opposition of styles of philosophizing - the clarity and validity of Leibniz's argumentation against the fluidity and hermeneutic "questioning" of Heidegger - in the course of philosophical searches for the ultimate foundations of Being, one can discover non-surface points of intersection in their reflections on the nature and status of negativity. The author examines in detail the methodological strategies of "thinking through" Nothingness and reveals similar intuitions in understanding the conceptual content and philosophical status of the category of Nothingness.
The novelty of the study lies in identifying specific points of intersection between Leibniz and Heidegger in the philosophical discourse on the nature of negativity. It is particularly emphasized that despite the difference in styles of philosophizing and considering Nothingness, we are dealing with the “non-present presence of Nothingness”, where the latter appears not as a negation or “deprivation”, but is filled with positive content. The similarity of the philosophizing of Leibniz and Heidegger was also manifested in their search for new terms in an attempt to reform the language of traditional metaphysics. It is shown that historical and philosophical schematism with its “-isms” and “-ologies” is not always productive, since it simplifies and obscures some aspects that are not obvious and important for understanding the ideas of a particular philosopher. By penetrating the history of metaphysics with various methods in search of an answer to the question “Does the non-existent exist?”, they thereby support and develop the historical tradition of metaphysics as “philosophia perennis,” treating it as an eternal present.

Abstract: The subject of the study is the ideological heritage of ancient Chinese thinkers, one way or another related to the theoretical understanding of the practice of public debate. The process of institutionalization of the dispute in Ancient China is considered in detail, it is substantiated that its prerequisite was the existence of a specific argumentative discourse in the form of the so-called "beliefs" - teachings, edifying speeches of advisers to their rulers. Arguments against the occurring identification of "beliefs" with real public disputes that were widespread during the Zhangguo period - the "Rivalry of a Hundred Schools" are considered. It is shown that a number of ideas developed during this period will subsequently acquire a normative status and become the hallmark of the Chinese dispute. During the consideration of various types of disputes, techniques specific to the Chinese type of argumentation were identified: the method of associations, references to precedents, the use of the last word; the role of examples as the basis of inductive reasoning is shown. Based on the consideration of the Confucian concept of "correction of names" and the Mohist doctrine of the correct use of language, it is shown that the socio-political context and practical considerations played a decisive role in the theoretical understanding of the art of argumentation. The productive methodological ideas of the ancient Chinese "Dispute Program" are revealed. The role of analogy and examples as topoi of the ancient Indian dispute is shown. The theory of reasoning and the theory of dispute of the late Mohists are analyzed, the conclusion is substantiated that the principles of justification and persuasion, as well as the rules for conducting a dispute contained in them, are applied logic, the normativity of which allows us to consider it as the first theory of argumentation.

Abstract: The object of the research is the culture of dialogue, its content and normative components, and metaphysical foundations of the culture of dialogue. Various approaches to understanding the nature of dialogue in the historical tradition, starting from antiquity and ending with modernity, are considered in detail. In the course of the analysis, special attention is paid to identifying ontological prerequisites and epistemological attitudes in the most significant theoretical approaches to understanding the nature of dialogue. Productive methodological ideas of phenomenology, "philosophy of dialogue", theory of communicative action are revealed. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the heuristic and analytical possibilities of the concept of the "Other" as the basis for recognizing the initial equality of the participants in the dialogue and the formation of a mindset for the "peaceful" resolution of differences. The role of the culture of dialogue (in the form of recognized norms and compliance with the rules of interaction) is shown as an important component of mutual understanding and tolerance. The peculiarity of the reception of the ancient approach to dialogue in the non-rhetorical project of the twentieth century is revealed. It is shown that the normativity of one of the most significant modern approaches to the construction of the theory of argumentation – pragma-dialectical, has roots in the ancient tradition of dialogue. As one of the important conclusions, it is substantiated that the ideal model of "critical discussion" developed at the Belgian school of pragma-dialectics can serve not only as a methodological basis for the modern theory of the culture of dialogue, but also as a guide in its organization and structuring, creating good opportunities for reaching a possible consensus. The novelty of the research lies in identifying the philosophical and ideological foundations of the concept of "critical discussion" and the methodological significance of the "moral code", the observance of the "commandments" of which leads to an increase in the culture of dialogue as a necessary condition in the search for common meanings, without which it is impossible to overcome the high conflictogenicity of modern society.