Suchergebnisse

.

This article analyses socio-biographical characteristics of the Leningrad State University (LGU) teaching staff, subjected to political repressions from 1935 to 1938. It determines the scale of repressions in LGU during the abovementioned period as well as identifies the groups of University teachers who were exposed to the highest risk of being repressed, taking into consideration their social background, party membership, ethnic origin, position in the University ranks, affiliation with a certain faculty or department, and other socio-biographical characteristics. Thus "socio-demographic portrait" of an average LGU teacher subjected to political repressions is formed within the framework of the current study. Apart from that, the article discusses the course of investigation and court proceedings, defining under which paragraph of Article 58 of RSFSR Criminal Code LGU teachers were sued. It specifies to what extent the severity of the verdict depended upon pleading guilty or not guilty by the accused, and upon which judicial or extrajudicial body the case was heard. Evidential basis used by investigators, including physical evidence, denunciations, incriminations and self-incriminations are also examined within this study. The efforts of NKVD to "reclassify" meetings between groups of fellow professors as "counterrevolutionary collusions of terrorists" are also considered in the article. At the same time, the article attempts to estimate the level of physical and psychological pressure to which suspects were exposed in the course of the trial in order to obtain from them the testimony needed for the prosecution. The study also traces the fate of the convicted LGU professors, namely the likelihood of them becoming the victims of subsequent political repressions after serving the sentence.

This work is the final one in a series of articles on possible types of organiza­tion of global and possible measures to counteract the loss of autonomy by particular individuals – turning them into Homo Cells – human cells of a more global organism. The task set before it and solved in it is to demonstrate the differences between the concept of "Rhizome" from the other two types of organization – hierarchy and network – and its heuristic potential for solving the issue of individual autonomy. In previous works, it was shown that this question was posed by Kant as the main task of the Enlightenment. Subse­quently, this problematic field inherited the current of post-anarchism, which takes its conceptual apparatus from the philosophical system of G. Deleuze and, moreover, is the ideological heir to the Kantian project. In the discourse of Russian academic philosophy, "Rhizome" was likened to the concept of "Network" (in the form in which it was developed within the framework of the Actor-Network theory), known in Russian literature on organization the­ory as a decentralized structure, traditionally opposed to a centralized struc­ture, i.e. "hierarchical". The consequence of such inattention, or the habit of thinking through analogies, was the complete absence at the moment of qualified research devoted to one of the main motives of the philosophy of Deleuze – the search for new thinking. This text is intended to show the possi­bility of a different understanding of the concept of "Rhizome", which opens up the possibility of solving a more important task at the present time – the discovery of a new thinking capable of asserting its autonomy in a society riddled with networked and hierarchized control structures.

This article is devoted to possible types of organization of global AI and possi­ble measures to counter the loss of autonomy by individuals – their transforma­tion into HomoCell – human cells of a more global organism. The text of Im­manuel Kant What is Enlightenment? Was chosen as a guideline. The author emphasizes that as the goal of the Enlightenment, Kant sets the task – the acqui­sition of independence by individuals in the use of their own mind. The afore­mentioned work remains one of the main programmatic texts of the Enlighten­ment, which, according to the author, is not over yet. The article notes that an autonomous or independent individual is an exclusion from society, literally. However, the connection of such subjectivization with marginality introduces the binary opposition norm/abnormality. The idea is that this dichotomy creates two opposing areas in the field of culture, thus making it impossible to either indicate or think over a balanced solution to the problem posed by Kant. The author proposes to trace the genealogy of the development and addition of the concept of Cogito – from Descartes to Deleuze – as the basis for the interpreta­tion of the subject, to introduce it into the theory of systems, and, thereby, rised above oppositions.