DOI: 10.7256/2409-8728.2017.1.18554

Abstract: The object of this research is the ethical discourses of Socratic philosophy and “Ethics” (published in 2003; translated to Russian in 2006) of the modern French philosopher Alain Badiou. The subject of this research is the conceptual parallels, which emerge between them as a result of similar ontological, gnoseological, and ethnical orientations of the Ancient Greek philosopher and our contemporary. For both, Socrates and Badiou, the initial property of humanness consists in ability towards the impartial interest in the search of ethos (consistent) foundation of the Universe. This, in turn, institutionalizes human as a creature, in which his animalistic beginning can be disrupted or canceled by the faithfulness of the truth, which being excessive with regards to our biologically temporal nature, forms our subjectness capable of immortality. The author concludes that ethical discourse of the Socratic dialogues and A. Badiou’s “Ethics” reveal similar conceptual parallels:Infinite otherness (multiplicity);Truth is indifferent to differences;We possess an ability to be what is called by certain truth towards own identity;There is no ethics except the ethics of processes of the truth (science, love, art, politics or Good – Truth – Beauty);Immortal in human appears as the position of impartial interest in the World as a purposeful self-worth;Tension of the moral discourse lies in horizon of the constant choice between the ethics of endless/necessary; real/possible;Truth can manifest itself only in the dialogue (polylogue). Truths make their singular penetration [percee] only through the fabric of opinions. We all need to communicate...It is we ourselves, as ourselves, who expose ourselves to the becoming-subject…Every absolutization of the power of a truth organizes an Evil.

DOI: 10.7256/2306-0174.2013.11.9201

Abstract: The author of the present article doesn't claim to describe the ethic concept of the New Testament. There are several reason to that. First of all, the author is not an expert in theology. Secondly, the article is too short to discuss such a topic. And thirdly, the author believes that the ethics of the New Testament is more co-existential than conceptual. Therefore, the author only focuses on some aspects connecting fates of St. Peter, Jesus and Judas with the integral co-existence where the author trie to describe ethic symmetry -and assymetry of Peter-Jesus and Jesus-Judas relations. Christ is viewed as the core of such relations and a living personification of Forgiveness leading to Atonement and Transfiguration. Peter's and Judas' fates evolve around this core and represent the two stories about existence. Both of them include Forgiveness but in the first story, Forgiveness leads to Transfiguration and in the second story, Forgiveness leads to Destruction. Why?  Speaking of Peter and Judas we don't only remember the story that happened long, long ago. We talk about what is happening to us here an now. Just like Peter and Judas, we and the whole world are facing the same choice: to lead the path of Transfiguration and Forgiveness or Betrayal. 

DOI: 10.7256/2306-0174.2013.10.8817

Abstract: The article conctains the analysis of philosophical and ethical aspects of the writings 'Bhagavad Gita' and 'the Book of Job'. The author of the article concludes that both writings represent similar ethical and philosophical views on the source and cause of suffering. This raises fundamental questions about the purpose of world creation and attempts to overcome the gap between ethics and ontology in developing ethical phenomenology of forgiveness. Human seeks to be forgiven. He needs it to change (transform) his deliberate accident into accidental deliberateness. This is realized through human opportunity to oppose his individual suffering to the world. Thus, the measure of human uniqueness (personality) is directly proportional to the measure of uncertainty human is ready to be responsible for. Job and Arjuna were brave enough to bear such responsibility and to ask God about the reasons of the gap between what there is and what there should be, and this is the reason why God answers them.