Conclusion
The decline of liberal humanism is accompanied by a crisis in the philosophy of history as a discipline. Political scientists generally recognize that humanity is currently undergoing a revolution, a kind of "rite of passage" (NEKLESSA ALEXANDR. 2019). They seek ways to realize this transformation by assuming the onset of peaceful globalization, which Neklessa saw as replacing previous territorial expansion with competitive colonization (IBID). However, liberal philosophers failed to foresee a dangerous version of this transition, as argued by leading Russian colleagues. It began in 2022 with Russia's open military invasion of Ukraine. Its subsequent expansionist intentions suggest that the time for globalization has not yet arrived, although discussions of global governance are already underway. In particular, the "Rethinking Global Politics" series of publications seeks a philosophical justification for this:
The very idea of ‘governance’ suggests that there is an element of potential intentionality and purposiveness in the way human affairs are managed that is inherently attractive, even necessary (BEESON MARK. 2019: XV)
In other words, it is necessary to adopt a unified morality and value system as an ethical basis for all of humanity (VOIN A. M. 2016: 11-12). Conscience, as a guideline for the humanization of human society, should become an objectively justified measure of this system.
Humanitarian ethics in human history originated in Confucianism, and China's rise to global leadership can be explained by the fact that Confucianism is "a resource for the development of a renewed world system" (CHUNG-YING CHENG 2019: 36). However, Chung-ying Cheng's understanding of the goal of civilization as achieving human well-being appears too mundane and short-sighted. Well-being itself can contribute to the achievement of this goal, as a necessary condition or a broader opportunity. Humanity can comprehend the mystery of God's purpose in creating the world only through self-improvement and by choosing the most successful examples of behavior, one of which, indeed, may be that affirmed by Confucian principles. J. Jennings rightly argues that long-ignored non-Western political systems of the distant and recent past can provide important insights for improving governance principles. He sees hope for humanity's survival in understanding how ancient collectives functioned, but it must be added that the experience of only successful collectives should be utilized (JENNINGS JUSTIN. 2023: i). Here we have turned to history for guidance, particularly the history of Rome. We cannot ignore Chung-ying Cheng's recommendation:
Confucianism is a philosophy based on empirical observation and a reflective understanding of humanity or what a person is. It all started with a modest observation of how things and people change and move. This observation experience awakens a person to reflect on his own identity so that he can change his behavior and affirm the autonomy of humans will be based on human feelings and human understanding. Therefore, Confucianism is the discovery of humanity from himself to others and from others to himself. In this discovery of his own “I”, a person establishes his identity and begins to feel others concerning their identities, which should be discovered by their own “I”. He reveals the human goal of finding good and the human potential for this (CHUNG-YING CHENG 2019: 39).
Chung-ying Cheng's opinion may not accurately reflect the essence of Confucianism. It reveals the influence of Western philosophy on him. The key question is whether China can offer an alternative vision or maintain current models of international cooperation. China's comparatively advanced civilization did not provide the impetus for global expansion or dominance in the way that Europeans later achieved (BEESON MARK. 2023: XViii, 2). Chung-ying Cheng's example merely suggests that China's success was ensured by its adoption of European achievements in its own interpretation.
The positive achievements of accumulated experience are inherited, if not genetically, then by the mechanisms of evolutionary psychology. These mechanisms take centuries to develop, and they cannot be expected to change in the blink of an eye. In line with traditional politics, the Chinese leadership is implementing administratively what is achieved in the West through democratic means—regularly rotating ruling teams and combating corruption and social inequality. This balanced policy, coupled with cheap labor and a large domestic market, has ensured China's ultra-fast economic growth and brought it very close to the nominal leader of the global economy, which the United States remains. By applying "soft power," also shaped by Confucian principles, China is becoming a global superpower, setting a model for the peoples of Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Oceania.
As the definition suggests, Confucianism omits the role of God in organizing the life and activities of a structured human society, whereas this role should be based on ethical norms developed by individuals in the process of knowing God. Perhaps such individuals hear God's voice and interpret it in their own way, but fundamentally, God speaks to each person through the voice of conscience, and it is by this voice that they must be guided. Thus, Confucianism must have a grain of truth. A structured society cannot exist without subordination. For radical change to occur, the masses must agree that respecting subordination contributes to successful development.
Something similar must exist in the organization of global governance institutions, which will have implications for international relations, the peaceful nature of which is hampered by ideological divides. Some nations have developed an inferiority complex and seek their own greatness in a mythical past. Such attempts naturally evoke skepticism, which only deepens the alienation between nations and fuels unhealthy ambitions.
The search for greatness in the past is driven by a heightened sense of national dignity. This generally positive quality is understood too simply and superficially. In their reasoning, a person must necessarily pay attention to the reasons that push their thoughts in one direction or another. The greatest benefit to every nation comes from those who guide their lives by the voice of conscience as if it were the voice of God. By doing so, they contribute more to its progress than by inventing and disseminating fantasies about its past greatness, which are perceived by the general public in a democratic society. All this lowers the quality of human life and destroys the greatest values:
The abstract idea of democracy harbors the greatest disdain for the qualities of man and the people, for their spiritual level. This idea would divert human attention from the content of human life and its purpose and direct it entirely to the forms of expression of will. Popular sovereignty is entirely formal. It remains unknown what the sovereign people will want when everything is left to their will, what kind of way of life they will wish to create (BERDYAEV N. 2017: 134).
Authoritarian rule doesn't explain China's economic success, but it does raise doubts about the viability of liberal forms of government. A closer look reveals other signs of the decline of the European democratic system:
- it has long been evident that the overwhelming majority of newly created parties in Europe are "protest" groups, and only a few are capable of effective governance (KOMAREK STANISLAV. 2021: 233).
In the decades since the end of the Cold War, it (the Western political elite – V.S.) has noticeably deteriorated because there have been no challenges, which, in fact, temper the elite. Now it is composed of people who have spent many years learning to avoid responsibility and real political decisions, engaging in imitation political activity (OLESHCHUK PETRO. 2024).
Liberal democracy presupposes not only universal free elections but also the rule of law, separation of powers, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and property ownership. However, in some Central Asian countries, free elections have brought dictators to power; in the Balkans, they have exacerbated interethnic conflicts, while authoritarian rule there maintained tolerance. In Arab countries, there is a risk of electing regimes even more reactionary than those that preceded them (ZAKARIA FARID. 2004: 6). Thus, it turns out that liberal democracy can lead to the opposite of its intended outcome.
The spread of liberal democracy can be explained by the fact that Europe deviated from its historical path, conditioned by natural conditions, relatively recently, roughly after the French Revolution. A new path of development was opened by the Enlightenment, who conceived of social existence as independent of the laws of nature, and on this foundation developed the liberal humanism that led to instability throughout the world. Ensuring stability became the imperative of the times, leading to the belief that it was possible using examples from physics, although this topic should be considered more broadly, drawing on the principles of cybernetics. This science, with purely European roots, studies the control patterns of complex systems—be they machines, living organisms, or societies—using scientific paradigms that symbolically reflect the structure of the world. It operates with the phenomenon of feedback, which can be positive or negative. Positive feedback can lead a system to instability, while feedback, to varying degrees, restrains control factors and is used to bring the system to a more stable state.
God laid both the principles of structuring and polymorphism at the foundation of the earthly civilization he was creating, and man cannot ignore them. The modern theory of multiple modernities, supported by many philosophers, should be considered a form of polymorphism, but this multiplicity must have institutionalized moral boundaries that ensure the upward development of humanity. The principle of structuring is also all-encompassing, and various modernities must also be subordinated to it. As long as legitimate social classes existed under monarchical rule, ensuring the structuring (socialization) of society, the humanistic ideas that arose among the Indo-Europeans in prehistoric times were maintained at the proper level by authoritative institutions. This was sufficient for the dynamic development of European countries. Europe's multinational nature ensured the necessary polyphony in the forms of social consciousness. When democratic forms began to extend not only to the political system but also to spiritual life, public consciousness fell under the influence of globalization, and Europe entered a period of protracted systemic crisis, one manifestation of which was the desocialization of society. All this raises the question of whether democracy truly best serves the task of organizing society for the greatest benefit to people. Clearly, democracy can be accepted when the majority of citizens understand the current social problems. Without this understanding, they become targets for manipulation by demagogues, populists, and cunning politicians, reaping the fruits of incompetent leadership (VOIN A.M. 2017: 9). Nevertheless, the principle of democracy has been increasingly developed historically. The existence of democratic aspirations explains not only human psychology but also the very nature of power. Every leader of a collective is guided by the mood of its members and takes this into account in their work. Abandoning the democratic principle in the current state of human society is impossible; otherwise, it risks instability. It must be put to proper use.
According to the principle of structuring, power cannot be wielded by the entire multitude of members of any human community. Certain categories of people must exist from which governing bodies, both central and local, are formed. The principle of structuring must be scientifically implemented; otherwise, it is implemented spontaneously and, in fact, exists. While professing liberal democracy, large owners of the means of production create a group of those in power at the highest level of social stratification, and lower levels are formed accordingly. This social structure is not legalized anywhere, and its existence is not officially mentioned. This cannot be, and this spontaneous process of distributing the actual, rather than declared, rights and responsibilities of society's members must be brought under control.
When discussing democracy, one must address questions of freedom and equality. Liberalism is rooted in the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Romans that emphasizes the importance of personal freedom (ZAKARIA FARID. 2004: 8). However, the Greeks and Romans may have understood freedom differently than modern philosophers. Here is one modern definition:
The basic meaning of the word “freedom” is freedom from chains, from prison, from enslavement by others. All other meanings of the word expand on the original and are metaphorical. To strive for freedom is to try to remove obstacles; to strive for personal freedom is to try to restrain foreign interference, to prevent exploitation, to prevent oneself from being enslaved by others who pursue their own goals, not yours. Freedom, at least in the political sense, is synonymous with the absence of coercion or domination [BERLIN ISAIAH, 1992, 52].
Philosophers attempt to describe the concept of freedom, but its essence eludes their discussions whenever they discuss positive and negative freedom. This is because man is never free. Even if he is free from chains, prison, slavery, and other external constraints on his actions, he remains a prisoner of internal constraints—fear and conscience. Constitutional liberalism, in the words of Zakaria, places the rule of law at the center of political life, while the rule of law must be exercised. However, man has not only rights acquired by birth but also duties dictated by his conscience, also received from God at birth. And if his rights are guaranteed by laws, then his duties must also be regulated by some form of social life.
Throughout human history, religion has been such a form, and Christianity has been particularly consistent in affirming the importance of man's duty to God. However, in recent centuries, the existing conflict between duties to God and the state has taken the form of a conflict between the state and the Church. As a result, the Church is losing influence on social processes because Christianity fails to refine its understanding of human nature. Conversely, people, while not losing their Christian religiosity and faith in the omnipotence of God, were losing faith in the omnipotence of the Church. Guided by their own experiences of faith and lacking hope for salvation in the afterlife, they began to seek spiritual support in this world. Furthermore, the dawn of a new era in the history of Christianity is heralded by an influx of new believers, not in the West, but in the so-called "global South"—in Africa, Asia, and Latin America (STEPANOVA E.A. 2012, 87).
The understanding of human equality must also be refined. It can be compared to the equality of infinitesimal quantities in mathematics, which, while differing in magnitude, can be small of varying orders of magnitude. No arithmetic operations on them change their essence, and they always remain infinitesimal. In the same sense, equality exists in human society and should be understood as the equality of people before God.
The fundamental flaws of democracy have long been known, but its proponents as a form of government love to repeat: "Yes, democracy is imperfect, but humanity hasn't yet invented anything else." Is this true?
Throughout human history, all forms of government can be divided into three groups: rule by a single individual, rule by a group, and rule by the majority. More recently, forms of government have generally evolved from authoritarian to democratic. However, a careful examination of the power structure of past and present states reveals that a combination of democratic and authoritarian forms of government has always existed, and states have achieved their greatest success where this combination was more harmonious. The ancient Greek Stoic philosopher Panaetius (180 BC – 110 BC) even considered it an ideal combination of monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic elements (RUSSELL BERTRAND. 1995: 237). Consider, for example, the history of Ancient Rome. The interaction of democratic and autocratic elements in Rome produced favorable results, and Roman achievements were later utilized by medieval Europe in state and military development, the development of legal theory, and so on.
Democracy can function successfully only if the majority of citizens understand the problems facing society. Only under this condition can they choose leaders who want and can solve these problems. Otherwise, they become the object of manipulation by demagogues, populists, and clever politicians and reap the fruits of their inept and dishonest leadership (VOIN A.M. 2017: 9).
The disadvantages of democracy are not disputed, but supporters of democracy as a form of government like to repeat: "Yes, democracy as a form of government is imperfect, but humanity has not yet come up with anything else." Is it so?
Throughout the history of mankind, all forms of government can be divided into three groups: the rule of one person, groups of individuals, and the rule of the majority. Closer to our time, forms of government generally develop from authoritarian to democratic. However, carefully considering the power structure of the states of the past and the present, we can conclude that there has always been a combination of democratic and authoritarian forms of government, and where this conjunction was more harmonious, the states achieved the greatest success. The ancient Greek philosopher Stoic Panetius (180 BC – 110 BC) even considered the combination of monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic elements to be ideal (RUSSELL BERTRAND. 1995: 237). Let us recall the history of ancient Rome. The interaction of the democratic and autocratic components of power in Rome had good results, and Roman achievements were later used by medieval Europe in state and military construction, the development of a theory of law, etc.
At present, in Europe, a further simplification of the structure of society grows in the direction of increasing its monotony. At the lowest level of the structure are the broad masses. Overestimating the possibilities of democracy and trying to democratize all spheres of human activity, intellectuals try to attract the masses to an active social life, but they fail to:
Endless moralizing calls for informing: to guarantee a high degree of awareness of the masses, to provide them with full socialization, to raise their cultural level, etc. – are dictated solely by the logic of the production of sanity. However, these appeals have no sense – rational communication and the masses are incompatible. Sense is given to the masses, but they crave spectacle (BAUDRILLARD JEAN. 2000: 15).
At the same time, political scientists and philosophers, traditionally considering democratization as progress, are now somewhat puzzled by the fact that democracy does not work in most post-communist countries. Moreover, an analysis of the activities of democratic institutions in Latin America, the United States, and Europe gave reason to doubt the universality of democratic forms of government(LEVITSKY STEVEN, ZIBLATT DANIEL. 2018), and such attitudes are especially clearly manifested in Russia:
In Russian ruling circles, the thesis is now fashionable that democracy in the West is just a game, behind which lies the power of money, the military-industrial complex, special services, etc. Indeed, in no country in the world is there democracy in the sense in which it was understood in ancient Athens, namely: "democracy". Elites rule everywhere and usually legitimize their power through elections. At the same time, in democracies, elections, due to what happens during their real, but not imitative, competition, make democracy both a game and a reality. One of the main reasons for the current crisis of democracy in the West is precisely that there are more games and fewer realities (CHERNEGA B.N. 2019: 32).
In the current circumstances, a new category of people should play a more influential role in world politics, but not as E. Fromm envisioned them. He believed these people must renounce all forms of possessions, gain self-confidence based on an inner need for affection, love, and unity with the world, experience the joy of serving others, free themselves from illusions, and so on (FROMM ERICH. 2010, 182-183). In general, according to his vision, people of this new category must learn to fully exist, that is, to enjoy life. But this is not why God created man, although the purpose of his creation can only be guessed at. Since man has changed significantly over the course of his existence, it can be assumed that the process of creation continues. This is evidenced, for example, by the emergence and development of conscience in man as a perfection of his spiritual sphere. All this comes from God, but man, in order to join in the process of creation, must understand the significance of conscience and use its manifestations to his own advantage. There are people of a new category; they are aristocrats of the spirit; the only thing that can be said is that, given the existing subordination in society, they should be at its highest level.
Improving human spiritual and physical qualities is becoming especially relevant in the context of the constant deterioration of natural conditions. The Club of Rome report examines the topic of systemic crisis primarily in terms of the interaction between nature and humans (WEIZSÄCKER, von ERNST ULRICH; WIJKMAN ANDERS. 2018, 2). Emphasis is placed on preserving the quality of natural elements, but when two entities interact, both must adapt to each other. Human adaptation to changing environmental conditions is generally not discussed, although this trend is already emerging in the new posthumanist movement. Proponents of this worldview, in their pursuit of perfection, must integrate themselves into the entire process of creation of the Universe, and at a certain stage of their development, humans must fulfill some Divine task on Earth within this process. This task is more serious than simply existing in joy and love. Joy and love, as positive qualities of life, should only ensure the successful constructive activity of people in accordance with their potential. The history of humanity has always been a joint act of creation between God and Man, but in the future this interaction must become more coordinated:
Episodic and ephemeral human participation in earthly history is redeemed when he gets the opportunity to play his role on Earth as a willing helper of God, whose authority over everything gives Divine weight and significance to insignificant and pitiful human effort without it (TOYNBEE ARNOLD J. 1995: 108).
But to become the “willing assistant”, it is necessary to understand the ideas of God, according to which He created this world, to realize exactly what He did and what Man did, and analyze whether any actions of Man contradict the act of God. According to Saint Augustine (354-430), each person finds evidence of the existence of God in his soul, but nowadays it is not enough to prove the existence of God to yourself; it is necessary to understand the "logic" of His creation. The prehistory of humanity, when man himself played an insignificant role, allows it to be done, but it still needs to be known in general ways. And this should be the priority of the people of the new category, whose activities will be aimed at overcoming the crisis of liberal humanism. Instead of a passive desire to be in a fundamentally new society, they should have an active desire to have it. Such people cannot be very numerous, especially since they have to give up some dubious joys of life, but having joy and at the same time the duty to serve God and people following the traditional ethical values, which provide for respect for elders, teachers, and parents, what is impossible without realizing by men their place in the hierarchical structure "family – community – region – country – nation".
The simultaneous crisis of Christianity and democracy suggests the need for their simultaneous reform, combining authoritarian and democratic principles. The authoritarian principle is suitable for a structured society with established subordination among its members while adhering to the idea and purpose of its existence. The democratic principle is suitable for finding, through trial and error, a current plan for achieving set goals. Such a structure is possible as a "Regimentum mixtum" (mixed government), and this division of sovereignty has a profound philosophical justification:
Throughout the long development, from 600 BC to the present day, philosophers have been divided into those who wished to tighten social bonds and those who wished to relax them. With this difference, others have been associated (RUSSELL BERTRAND. 1946: 21).
Russell called one of these strands of philosophy the disciplinarians and the other the liberalists. There has long been a conflict between these areas:
This conflict existed in Greece even before the rise of what we recognize as philosophy, and it is quite clearly expressed in the representatives of the earliest Greek thought. Modified, it persists up to the present time and, undoubtedly, will persist for many centuries to come (RUSSELL BERTRAND. 2001: 13].
A mixed system of government can resolve this conflict. The liberal democratic component of government should be limited to the secular sphere, with varying levels of democracy in state and local governments. Authoritarian government should ensure social discipline by organizing and controlling spiritual life, and this can be implemented in various ways, including by an institution similar to the traditional church, composed of a spiritual aristocracy and an intellectual elite. This institution should determine its own composition and monitor the state of morality in society, combining the restraints of fear and conscience.
Plato believed that states should be governed by philosophers. However, even two thousand and a half years later, the idea of governing states on a scientific basis remains far from reality. It is not without reason that A.D. Sakharov lamented that "the scientific method of guiding politics, economics, art, education, and military affairs has not yet become a reality" (SAKHAROV A.D., 1968). In principle, those in power should espouse some lofty goals. However, in Plato's time, philosophy was in such a state that entrusting state governance to philosophers would have been dangerous, and Sakharov was not a philosopher. In antiquity, philosophy was in harmony with the achievements of contemporary physics and mathematics, for both physicists and mathematicians were also philosophers. In our time, a true philosopher has the opportunity to operate with a much greater body of knowledge from the humanities and natural sciences, but so far it has not been possible to integrate them into a coherent system. Russian philosophers are attempting to do just that.
In one of the works of a leading Russian philosopher, "civilizational projects" is based on Christian values associated with Russian Orthodoxy (REZNIK Yu.M. 2020, 24). However, Orthodox churches have always been dependent on secular authorities, so Orthodox doctrines are unsuitable for mixed government, as the authoritarian and democratic branches of government must be independent of each other. If we are to focus on Christian values, then we must do so in the Catholic, that is, ecumenical sense. The Catholic Church has rarely been dependent on secular authorities, and this would facilitate the implementation of a mixed form of government with its participation, but this currently seems impossible. However, a similar form of government exists in some monarchical countries in Europe as a development of the Catholic tradition of the struggle between Church and state. Under existing democratic institutions, the king, to a certain extent embodies spiritual authority. This apparent anachronism reflects a certain historical pattern, whereby a dictatorship replaces an overthrown monarchy. In different countries, this social transformation has national characteristics that do not change the overall picture:
The strong preference for unity, at least among a portion of the population, helps explain why numerous liberal or democratic revolutions, from 1789 onward, ended in dictatorships that enjoyed wide support. (APPLEBAUM ANNE. 2023: 157).
manifested itself before the French Revolution. In England, after the king's execution, power passed to Lord Protector Cromwell; in France, in a similar situation, Napoleon was eventually crowned emperor. Following the collapse of monarchies shortly after the First World War, individuals with particular charisma came to power: Hitler in Germany, Stalin in Russia, Franco in Spain, and Salazar in Portugal. The figures of Mussolini, Horthy, and Antonescu add nuance to this pattern, which responds to the mass consciousness's need for an authoritative leader. These dictators would not have succeeded among the masses if they had not relied on attractive ideologies readily accepted by the masses: Nazism, fascism, communism, national Catholicism, and so on. Thus, history itself, given the need for a spiritual leader, suggests a form of state power in the form of a Regimentum Mixtum, into which monarchies can organically evolve without social upheaval. Defining the appropriate powers and granting them to the king in a constitutional manner would help maintain the level of morality in the state based on a modern interpretation of the principles common to the major world religions.
Literature
Abbreviations
FS – International Yearbook "The Future of Science"Release of the second. 1968. Moscow. "Znanie". In Russian.
NFY – The Next Fifty Years. Edited by John Brockman. 2002. New York.
PMF – Miscellany: "Pläne für eine menschliche Zukunft". Herausgeben von Rüdiger Lutz. Auswahl aus den Öko-Log. Bücher 1,2 und 3, erscheinen bei Beltz 1981, 1983 und 1984. In German.
WBGD – Dallmayr Fred, Demenchonok Edward. 2017. A World Beyond Global Disorder: The Courage to Hope. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
ACEMOGLU DARON and ROBINSON JAMES A. 2012. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. New York. Crown Busines.
APPLEBAUM ANNE. Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism. Kyiv. HREC PRESS.
BACON FRANCIS. 2002. The New Organon. Cambridge University Press.
BAUDRILLARD JEAN. 1983. In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities, or the end of the social. New York. Semiotext.
BAZALUK OLEG. 2014. Teoriya evolyutsii: ot kosmicheskogo vakuuma do neyronnykh ansambley i v budushcheye – ( In Russian) – The Theory of Evolution: From the Vacuum of Space to Neural Ensembles and into the Future. Kiev.
BERDYAEV N. 1951. "The Kingdom of Spirit and the Kingdom of Caesar". Paris. In Russian.
BERLIN ISAIAH. 1994. Chotyry ese pro svibodu – In Ukrainian – Four Essays on Liberty. Kyiv. Osnovy.
BESTUZHEV-LADA I.V. 1968. The Future of Mankind as an Object of Scienific Research. FS.
BLAUT J. M. 1993. The Colonizer's Model of the World. Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History. THE GUILFORD PRESS New York / London.
BUCKLE H.T. 1863. History of Civilization in England. Saint Petersburg.
CARPA FRITJOF. 1988. Krise und Wandel in Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft. PMF.
CHERNEGA V.N. 2019. "Proryv" ili otstavaniye? Rossiyskiy proyekt v sovremennom mire – In Russian – "Breakthrough" or Lag? The Russian Project in the Modern World//Russia and the Modern World. Moscow.
CHUNG YING CHENG. 2019. Moral'noye osmysleniye global'nogo krizisa: izucheniye garmonii i etiki kak resheniye – In Russian – Understanding the global crisis: a study of harmony and ethics as a solution// Vek globalizatsii № 3 (31). Moscow.
COLLINWOOD R.G. 1996. The Idea of History. Kyiv. In Ukrainian.
de las Casas Bartolomé. 1542. A short Account of the Destruction of the Indies.
CSIKSZENTMIHALYI MIHALY. 2008. The Future of Happiness. FS21.
DALLMAYR FRED, 2017. Introduction. The Courage to Hope. WBGD.
DEMENCHONOK EDWARD. 2017. Preface. WBGD.
DRUZHININ V.I., SAMARTSEVA Ye.I. 2009. U istokov intelligentsii.ru i sovesti.net – In Russian – At the Origins of Intelligentsia.ru and Conscience.net. Tula. Publishing house TulGU.
ELLIS HAVELOCK. 1904. A Study of British Genius. Hurst and Blackett, Limited. London.
FLECHTHEIM OSSIP K. 1988. Plädoyer für eine neue Futurulogie. PMF. In German.
FORMOZOV A.A. 2005. Chelovek i nauka: iz zapisey arkheologa – In Russian – Man and Science: From the Records of an Archaeologist. Moscow. "Znak".
FROMM ERICH. 1986. Haben oder Sein. Die seelischen Grundlagen einer neuen Gesellschaft. München. In German.
FROMM E. 2002. Gumanisticheskiy psikhoanaliz – ( In Russian) – Humanistic psychoanalysis. Saint Petersburg.
FROMM ERICH. 2010. Maty chy buty? – (In Ukrainian – To Have or To Be/
FUKUYAMA FRANCIS. 2004. Konets istorii i posledniy chelovek – ( In Russian) – The End of History and the Last Man. Moscow. Publisher ACT.
GARE ARRAN. 1996. Nihilism Inc.: Environmental Destruction and the Metaphysics of Sustainability. Sydney: Eco-Logical Press.
GAUDIUM ET SPES. 1965. пастирська конституція Другого Ватиканського собору Католицької церкви.
GLINCHIKOVA A.G., VERETEVSKAYA A.V. 2019.Po tu storonu global'nogo besporyadka: Vek globalizatsii № 1 (29) – ( In Russian)- Beyond Global Disorder: The Age of Globalization No. 1 (29). Moscow-Volgograd.
GOODWIN BRIAN. 2008.In the Shadow of Culture. FS21.
HARARI Yu.N. 2016. Lyudyna rozumna – In Ukrainian – Homo Sapiens. Kharkiv. Family leisure club.
HARARI Yu.N. 2018. Homo Deus. Kratkaya istoriya budushchego – In Russian – Homo Deus. A Brief History of the Future. Moscow. Sinbad.
HAIVORONYUK N.V., PRYIMAK B.I. 2019. Filosofsʹko-pravovi aspekty teoriyi i praktyky mulʹtykulʹturalizmu – In Ukrainian – Philosophical and Legal Aspects of the Theory and Practice of Multiculturalism. Legal Scientific Electronic Journal.
HEFFERNAN MICHAEL J. 2011. The Meaning of Europe: Geography and Geopolitics. Kyiv.
HEINRICH HEINE. 1966. Zur Geschichte der Religion und Philosophie in Deutschland. Leipzig.
HEINSOHN GUNNAR. 2006. Söhne und Weltmacht. Berlin.
HOBBES T. 2001. Leviafan – ( In Russian)- Leviathan. Moscow.
HOFFMANN JUlIA. 2014. Das Wirken Gottes innerhalb eines evolutiven Weltbildes. Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doktors der Philosophie. Institut für Katholische Theologie der Pädagogischen Hochschule. Karlsruhe. In German
HOLISTER C.W., 1991. Roots of the Western Tradition.
INOZEMTSEV B.L. В.Л. 2004. Svoboda i demokratia: chto vyshe? – In Russian – Freedom and Democracy: what is higher?//ZAKARIA FAREEDЗ. 2004. The Future of Freedom. Moscow. Ladomir.
JENNINGS JUSTIN. 2023. Rethinking Global Governance. London and New York. Routlege.
KANT IMMANUEL. 2004. Krytyka praktychnoho rozumu – In Ukrainian – Critique of Practical Reason. Kyiv. Univers.
KNÖBL WOLFGANG. 2011. Contingency and modernity in the thought of J.P. Arnason//European Journal of Social Theory, 14. SAGE.
KOMÁREK STANISLAV. 2020. Yevropa na rozdorizhzhi – ( In Ukrainia) – Europe at a Crossroads. Lviv. "Apriori".
KUDRIAVTSEV P.S. 1982.
Кудрявцев П.С. 1982. Kurs istorii fiziki – In Russian – Course in the history of physics. Moscow. "Enlightenment".
KYMLICKA WILL. 2023. Nationhood, Multiculturalism and the Ethics of Membership. Academia.edu.
LE GOFF JACQUES. Translated by Julia Barrow. 1988. Medieval Civilization. 400-1500. Blackwell.
DLEVITSKY STEVEN, ZIBLATT DANIEL. 2018. How Democracies Die. New York. Crown.
LITTLEWOOD J.E. 1953. A Mathemaitician's Miscellany. London. Methuen & Co. Ltd.
LIFSHITS MIKH. 1994. Dzhambattista Viko – In Russian – Giambattista Vico.//Foundations of a New Science of the General Nature of Nations. Moscow-Kiev. REFLbook-ISA.
LUBCHENKO OLENA. 2025. Aktualʹna rozmova. Chy mozhe shtuchnyy intelekt zaminyty psykhoterapevta? – In Ukrainian – Current conversation. Can artificial intelligence replace a psychotherapist? NV.
LUTZ RÜDIGER. 1988. Total 2000. PMF.
MALTSEV OLEG. 2020. Posledniy prorok Yevropy – (in Russian) –Maestro. The last prophet of Europe. Odessa. Publishing house "Patriot".
NANDY ASHIS, 2017. Beyond Brutalization. WBGD.
NAZARETIAN A.P. 2004. Tsivilizatsionnyye krizisy v kontekste Universal'noy istorii – (in Russian) –Civilizational Crises in the Context of Universal History. Moscow.
NEKLESSA ALEKSANDR. 2019. Bor'ba za budushcheye – ( In Russian)- Fight for the Future. Methodological and prognostic aspects of civilizational competition: INTELROS – Intellectual Russia. Special issue. Moscow.
Tsivilizatsionnyye krizisy v kontekste Universal'noy istoriiNIKIFOROV ALEKSANDR. 2021. Kakoye budushcheye zhdet chelovechestvo? – (in Russian) – What future awaits humanity?//Philosophical journal. №3, 2021
OLESHCHUK PETRO. 2024. Perspektyvy zakhidnoyi dopomohy Ukrayini. Shcho bude dali. – (in Ukrainian) – Prospects of Western aid to Ukraine. What will happen next. Internet edition "New Voice".
POPPER KARL R. 1988. Abschied vom materialistischen Weltbild. PMF.
PAVLENKO Yu.V. 2004. Istoria mirovoy tsivilizatsii – (in Russian) – History of World Civilization. Kiev. "Fenix".
POLYAKOV ANDREY. 2019. Is there a Future for Russian Law?// Magazine "Law". № 12.
PRIGOGINE I. 1991. Filosofiya nestabil'nosti – (in Russian) – Philosophy of Instability. Problems of Philosophy (magazine). Nr.6. pp. 46-57.
PROZOROVA YULIA. 2021. Retseptsiya zapadnogo liberal'nogo proyekta i opyt postsovetskoy modernosti v Rossii// Neprikosnovennyy zapas – (in Russian) – Reception of the Western Liberal Project and the Experience of Post-Soviet Modernity in Russia// Safety reserve/ No. 137.
REES MARTIN. 2008. Cosmological Challenges: Are We Alone, and Where? FS21. Moscow.
ROLLER ANN. 1978. The Discovery of the Basic Laws of Life. Moscow. (In Russian, translation from English).
RUSSELL BERTRAND. 1995. Istoria zakhidnoi filosofii – ( In Ukrainian) – History of Western Philosophy. Kyiv. "Osnovy".
RUSSELL BERTRAND. 1946. History of Western Philosophy and its Connection with Political and Social Circumstances from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. New Delhi.
RUSSELL BERTRAND. 2013. Pochemu ya ne khristianin – ( In Russian)- Why I am not Christian. Moscow.
RYBACHUK SERGEY. 2018. Gibkost' konfutsianskoy mysli v usloviyakh krizisa – ( In Russian)- The flexibility of Confucian thought in a crisis: Logos. Volume 28. Number 6. Moscow.
RYKOV S.Yu. Liki kitayskoy ratsional'nosti: Istoriko-filosofskiy yezhegodnik. T. 33. Moskva – ( In Russian)- Faces of Chinese rationality: History of Philosophy Yearbook. V. 33. Moscow.
SAKHAROV A.D. 1968-1. Symmetry of the Universe. FS.
SAKHAROV A.D. 1968-2. Razmyshleniya o progresse, mirnom sosushchestvovanii i intellektual'noy svobode – (In Russian)-Reflections on Progress, Peaceful Coexistence, and Intellectual Freedom. Samizdat.
SHAPOVALOV V.A., VASILENKO V.V. 2010. Krizis nashego vremeni v nauchnom nasledii P.A. Sorokina – (In Russian) – The crisis of our time in the scientific heritage of P.A. Sorokina//Vestn. Moscow Univ. Ser 18. Sociology and political science. No. 2.Вестн. Моск ун-та. Сер 18. Социология и политология. №2.
SMOLIN LEE. 1997. The Life of the Cosmos. New York. Oxford.
SMOLIN LEE. 2002. The Future of the Nature of the Universe. NFY.
SOROKIN P. 1992. Krizis nashego vremeni// – In Russian – The Crisis of Our Time // Man. Civilization. Society. Moscow..
STEPANOVA E.A. 2012. Vera novogo veka – In Russian – Faith of the New Age // Religious Studies. No. 2.
STETSYUK V.M. 1987. Identification of Places of Settlement of the Ancient Slavs by Graphoanalytical Method. News of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. A Series of Literature and Language. Tom LХIV. №1.
STETSYUK VALENTYN. 2019. Reasoning on the Origin of the Human language// Macrolinguistics. Vol.7. № 1. (Serial № 10).
STEWART IAN. 2008. The Mathematics of 2050. FS21. Moscow.
TEIHARD de CHARDIN PIERRE. 1987. Fenomen cheloveka – In Russian – The phenomenon of Man. Moscow.
TOYNBEE ARNOLD J. 1995. Doslidzhennia istorii – In Ukrainiav – A Study of History. Tom 1. Kyiv. "Osnovy". The translation from English.
TROFIMOV P.A. 2022. Uill Kimlika: Mul'tikul'turalizm i neoliberalizm – In Russian – Will Kymlicka: Multiculturalism and Neoliberalism// Caspian Region: Politics, Economics, Culture. No. 4.
VERETEVSKAYA A.V. 2010. – In Russian – The Meaning and Significance of Multiculturalism//Political Science. Nr. 1. Moscow.
VERETEVSKAYA A.V. 2018. Mul'tikul'turalizm, kotorogo ne bylo: analiz yevropeyskikh praktik politicheskoy integratsii etnokul'turnykh men'shinstv – In Russian – Multiculturalism that Never was: analysis of European practices of political integration of ethnocultural minorities. Moscow. Izdatelʹstvo "MGIMO-Universitet".
VESELOVA E.K. 2009. Sovest' kak psikhologicheskiy fenomen – In Russian – Conscience as a Psychological Phenomenon // Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University. Ser. 12, no. 4
VOIN A.M. 2016. Filosofiya i global'nyy krizis – In Russian – Philosophy and the Global Crisis. Moscow-Berlin. Direct Media.
VOIN A.M. 2017. Yedinyy metod obosnovaniya nauchnykh teoriy – In Russian – An Unified Method for Substantiating Scientific Theories. Moscow-Berlin. Direct Media.
VOKIN G.G. 2015. Kosmos i chelovek. Priglasheniye k razmyshleniyam – In Russian – Space and Man. An invitation to reflection. Yubileynyy. ZAO "PSTM".
WEBER MAX. 1950. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York. London
WEIZSÄCKER, von ERNST UKRICH, WIJKMAN ANDERS. 2018. Come on! Springer.
WIENER NORBERT. 1956. I am a Mathematician. Garden City, New York. Doubleday & Co. Inc.
YARKHO V.N. 2010. Byla li u drevnikh grekov sovest'? (K izobrazheniyu cheloveka v atticheskoy tragedii) – In Russian – Did the ancient Greeks have a conscience? (To the image of a person in Attic tragedy) // Historical psychology and sociology of history. V. 3, № 1. Moscow.
ZAKARIA FAREED. 2004. Budushchee svobody – In Russian – The Future of Freedom. Moscow. Ladomir.
