I thank you all from my heart all those who commemorate the tragic day 20 august 2022 when my daughter Darya was brutally killed by Ukrainian terrorist woman. I thank all my friends and friends of Darya for Your condolences and sharing my deep sorrow. I also thank you for publishing the different books written by Dasha or dedicated to her memory.
I would like to say a few words about the intellectual message that stands out through Dasha, her life, her projects and aspirations, and the depths and heights of her heart as embodied in her diary and expressed in the two main ideas which I will now present.
In the history of 20th century philosophy and political science, everything associated with existentialism is opposed to politics. It is the existentialism of Sartre, Camus, leftist existentialism, which serves as a basis for criticising political structures and political systems, because it is a remote response to Heidegger.
Absolutely necessary changes are urgently needed in our society. Only they can lead us to Victory. And without Victory, there will be no Russia. Everyone understands this today. To save the people and the state, we must change. And radically and urgently.
It is wonderful that Africa remembers its friendship with Russia and does not abandon it even in the current difficult circumstances. But in history and politics, the friendship of nations has not only emotional, but also geopolitical, ideological and economic grounds.
Until recently, it was said at all levels of government that Russia is part of Western civilisation, a European country, and indeed it is, it is a child of the West, it is obvious that the West is older, more central and more responsible to its own civilisation, or one can even say that the West is a father, a parent. According to the formula 'Russia is a European country', the West taught Russia what it could do and what it could not do. Yes, the baby was huge and formidable but, from the West's point of view, wild, stupid and probably sick.
Today I am particularly concerned about an important question: can we finally break out of cultural one-dimensionality in our interpretation of events, and in particular of the last significant historical incident we experienced, namely Prigozhin's march on Moscow? When will our thinking stop being flat and one-dimensional and turn to the depths of meaning that lie behind the surface of historical phenomena?
I have noticed that the consciousness of many people [Russian citizens, ed.] cannot cope with the events of 24 June. So they tend to say: 'it didn't happen'; 'it wasn't real'; 'they were there on purpose'. This is the only way to numb the acute pain of what happened.
The future remains a mystery, an open book that no one can read with certainty. The same can be said about the present and the past; our understanding of them is far from absolute, resulting in diverse interpretations. The future is even more uncertain, especially when considering the ongoing brutal and intimidating conflict we are experiencing now—a battle waged against the united forces of the West.
Many are beginning to realise that what is happening cannot be explained in any way by the analysis of national interests, economic trends or energy policy, territorial disputes or ethnic tensions. Almost all the experts who try to describe what is happening with the usual pre-war terms and concepts appear at least unconvincing and often simply stupid.
Author follows the metamorphoses of Logos in post-modern society. He claims that we assist the dissipation of logical structures and suggests the chain Logos - logic - logistic - logeme, starting from global concept of universal order to complete atomization.
In any case, in order to analysis, from a sociological point of view, the content of postmodern society, i.e. to be a competent sociologist of the 21st century, it is absolutely necessary to operate with a set of sociological knowledge related to all three paradigms - pre-modern, modern and postmodern -, to know their key points, to understand the general structure of the respective societies, to be able to reconstruct the main poles, strata, status and roles of each type of society. This is necessary for the following reasons.
We read the thesis of the total mobilization in the context of Heidegger, and what do we get out of it? Exactly what Andrei was saying, that total mobilization means changing how one exists. According to Heidegger, there are two fundamental ways of existing, i.e. Dasein: inauthentic and authentic. When Dasein, that is, our human presence, the thinking presence, asks in the world what existence is and turns to its essence and comes face to face with death, because it is death that is the main existential of Dasein.
Many are beginning to realize that what is happening is in no way explained by national interest analysis, by economic trends or energy policy, by territorial disputes, or by ethnic contradictions. Virtually any expert who tries to describe what is happening in the usual terms and concepts of pre-war times looks at the least unconvincing, and more often than not, simply stupid.
The 20th century was a century of rivalry between three ideologies. Some managed to reign for several centuries (liberalism), others for decades and years (communism and national socialism). But their demise seems obvious to us. All three ideologies, daughters of the New Age philosophy, have left the space of politics. The era of modernity has come to an end.