Vladimir Filatov

Understanding has usually been seen as a method of hermeneutics. Until recently, philosophers of science paid little attention to the topic of scientific understanding because they came to the conclusion that understanding can be nothing more than a psychological by-product of scientific activity. However, many scientists believed that understanding was an important aim of science. The article states that understanding is a universal cognitive phenomenon applicable to the knowledge of not only cultural and historical phenomena, but also natural objects and processes. Understanding does not oppose explanation; some types of the latter produce scientific understanding. In the course of criticism of the standard model of scientific explanation, the first concepts of “scientific understanding” arose – unifying and causal-mechanistic. A pragmatic approach to scientific understanding is also considered, linking it to the cognitive skills of a scientist or a group of scientists.

From the editors. Our society, too, is apparently not uninterested in problems associated with such mysterious phenomena of the human psyche as clairvoyance, telepathy, and telekinesis. Expectations and hopes with regard to psychosurgical intervention on the human organism thrive; ideas of reincarnation and life after death, the interaction of our civilization with supposed inhabitants and civilizations of the Universe , the influence of the natural-cosmic environment on human destiny , or, on the contrary, man's independence of natural laws are widespread. The corpus of these ideas has a life of its own , is becoming institutionalized, is successful in lobbying for its interests, and is becoming an influential force in society, generating a unique emotional atmosphere that combines fear of the future with hopes that fate is more favorable to man than would be warranted from the picture of the world painted by modern science

200 years have passed since the birth of Karl Marx, a century and a half since the publication of the first volume of “Capital”. The theory of Marx had a great impact on the development of socio-political thought and the course of history, his legacy remains rel­evant today for philosophy and a whole range of specific sciences. Marx’s ideas were repeatedly reviewed, subjected to reassess­ment, criticized and refuted, but they resisted all attempts to send them to the intellectual past. The central place in Marx’s works is occupied by a critical analysis of capitalist society, its history and prospects for development. However, Marx made a significant contribution to the theory of knowledge, to the analysis of the social nature of consciousness and knowledge. In this regard, his ideas attracted and continue to attract many researchers today. The article considers the assessments of Marx as a thinker and sci­entist, his social analysis of science and technology, the influence of his ideas on the development of Russian psychology.

The article discusses the main developments in the theory of social understanding. This new interdisciplinary area of research emerged at the end of the 20th century as a synthesis of a number of directions – analytical epistemology, philosophy of mind, cognitive psychology, neuroscience. Most philosophers and scientists believe that the core of social understanding is the ability to understand the mental states of other people. Studies of this ability have been called ≪theory of mind≫. This traditional problem of epistemology has now ceased to be the subject of “armchair philosophy” and turned into a field in which philosophy began to interact with the empirical cognitive sciences. Discussions about cognitive mechanisms that provide social understanding are dominated by two main approaches: theory-theory and simulation theory, as well as various options for their integration. The article also discusses an alternative interactive approach to social understanding research. Its supporters believe that people in real interactions with each other rarely use theorizing or mental simulation, but use direct social perception and various forms of embodied social practice.

Thought experiments are traditionally associated with physics. In this science we can find a lot of wonderful examples of this method, especially in periods of scientific revolutions. But in the last decade in physics thought experiments are becoming increasingly rare, but in the social sciences and philosophy, they are widely used. What gives thought experiments, what is their value for scientific knowledge? Is it possible to use them to obtain new knowledge or they are just visual or paradoxical illustrations of any problems? The key issue, which I propose to discuss is the possibility to get with the help of thought experiments a priori knowledge. I will try to prove that it was impossible, that thought experiments have other functions in cognition.

At the end of the XIX century in the Russian socio-economic community dispute occurred on how to modernize the country - dispute about “the fate of capitalism" in Russia. One of the parties in this dispute were “legal marxists". The article analyzes the social, ideological and theoretical contexts of this dispute. It is shown that the marginal revolution significantly change the situation in the economics of that time. From the standpoint of the philosophy of science is given a rational reconstruction of the changing attitudes of legal marxists to Marx's economic theory. It is shown that they are quite rationally evaluated Marx's theory as obsolete and regressing and seen in marginal program a new and promising alternative in economic theory.