No 8 (2025)
Articles
The dialectic of closure and openness in Luhmann: a contrast with Simondon's processuality and Latour's flat ontology.
Abstract
The article explores the key dialectic of closure and openness in N. Luhmann's social systems theory, conducting a contrasting analysis with the process ontology of G. Simondon and the flat ontology of B. Latour. The aim of the work is to understand how Luhmann conceptualizes autopoietic systems as operationally closed (closed to direct "instructions" from the outside, self-reproducing through their own operations) but simultaneously cognitively and structurally open (capable of perceiving disturbances from the environment and evolving through changes in internal structure in response to them). This dialectic is contrasted, firstly, with Simondon's processuality, where the focus shifts to continuous becoming, individuation, and the lack of rigid boundaries between the “individual” and the “pre-individual,” in which closure as such is not a primary property. Secondly, it is contrasted with Latour's flat ontology, which rejects hierarchies and binary oppositions (such as closed/open) in favor of a network of heterogeneous actants, whose associations and interactions constitute reality without predetermined systemic boundaries. The methodology of the study is based on the sequential application of four complementary methods that provide depth of analysis and systematic comparison of the concepts of Luhmann, Simondon, and Latour: contextual hermeneutics of key texts, conceptual-terminological analysis, structural-functional comparison, and critical reconstruction and contrasting. The relevance of the article is determined by the necessity for a deep rethinking of the concepts of boundary, autonomy, and adaptation in complex modern societies and technological environments. Understanding Luhmann's dialectic is critically important for analyzing the resilience, variability, and "blindness" of social institutions in the face of global challenges: ecology, digitalization, pandemics, etc. The novelty lies in the systematic comparison of these three influential theoretical approaches specifically through the lens of the problem of closure and openness. The work demonstrates that Luhmann offers a unique path to understanding complexity that is distinct from both pure processuality (Simondon) and radical decentration (Latour): systems as closed operational unities due to their openness to evolution, rather than in spite of it. This allows for a new perspective on the paradoxes of modernity, where the growth of systemic complexity is accompanied by an increase in their operational isolation and specialization.
Philosophical thought. 2025;(8):1-21
1-21
From the Dialectics of Matter to the Processes of Individuation: A Comparative Analysis of the Ontologies of Friedrich Engels and Gilbert Simondon
Abstract
Modern philosophy, facing the crisis of classical metaphysical systems, actively seeks alternative approaches to understanding reality that can overcome the limitations of both substantialism and radical constructivism. While F. Engels, relying on dialectical materialism, views the world as a hierarchy of forms of the movement of matter, subject to universal laws of dialectics, J. Simondon shifts the focus from ready-made structures to processes of individuation, where being is constituted through the resolution of metastable tensions. In this context, a comparative analysis of the ontologies of Engels and Simondon acquires particular significance, as it allows for the comparison of two influential yet rarely contrasted traditions: dialectical materialism, with its emphasis on the objective laws of the development of matter, and process ontology, which foregrounds becoming and individuation. The research is relevant for addressing contemporary issues such as the understanding of complex systems, dynamics of social change, and the nature of materiality in posthuman studies. The methodological foundation of the article centers on the confrontation between two approaches: the objective dialectics of nature in Engels and the immanent ontology of becoming in Simondon. The comparative-critical analysis includes the following research methods: conceptual (categorical) analysis, textual analysis, comparative method, synthesis method, and constructive modeling. Additionally, elements of the philosophy of science, ontology, and social theory are employed to reveal the methodological limitations and advantages of each approach. The novelty of the article lies in the systematic juxtaposition of these two models, which identifies their methodological divergences and points of potential dialogue. Unlike traditional interpretations that reduce Engels' ontology to "the laws of dialectics," and Simondon's concept to a critique of substantiality, the author demonstrates that their confrontation touches on deeper questions regarding the nature of determination, the relationship between part and whole, as well as the possibilities of a non-reductionist understanding of matter. For the first time within a single study, the analysis of Simondon's critique of the "ready-made individual" and the idea of metastability raises doubts about key postulates of dialectical materialism, offering an alternative—an ontology in which order arises not from predetermined regularities but from the immanent dynamics of the pre-individual field. This opens up prospects for rethinking materialism in the context of contemporary disputes about realism, emergentism, contingency, and processuality.
Philosophical thought. 2025;(8):22-43
22-43
The communicative approach in the philosophy of the library as a social institution
Abstract
This article examines the communicative approach within the framework of social and political philosophy of libraries as a social institution from a practical perspective. Through a careful analysis and comparison of the mentioned scientific studies, as well as their methodological descriptions, the proposed research methods are utilized to address issues related to the communicative approach in the philosophy of libraries as a social institution. This research contributes some original scientific insight into the understanding of the communicative approach in the philosophy of libraries as a social institution based on a thorough analysis of existing scientific data, encompassing recent academic publications. The library is a term that evokes the image of a room filled with numerous bookshelves in the minds of most people. However, it is not merely a repository of information but a complex and multifaceted social institution. The library can be defined as a reflection of the values, knowledge, and aspirations of society, as well as an active participant in its formation and development. A practical problem-oriented approach is applied. The proposed study focuses primarily on the principles of philosophical cognition, emphasizing the philosophical and scientific nature of the research. The research methodology includes both general scientific and specific methods. A comparative analysis of academic sources is employed. The aim of this study is to explore libraries as a social institution and the communicative approach in the philosophy of libraries. The task of this research is to examine issues related to the communicative approach in the philosophy of libraries as a social institution. Essentially, it can be said that the communicative approach is an investment in the future of the library, an assertion that constitutes the novelty of this research. This initiative allows the library to remain relevant in a rapidly changing world, strengthen ties with society, and promote culture and education. Such an approach places people and their needs at the forefront, transforming the library into a living center for communication, idea exchange, and personal growth. Thus, the library serves as a platform for the development of civil society and the creation of a more just and inclusive world.
Philosophical thought. 2025;(8):44-62
44-62
Specificity of (not) intentional distortions in the transfer of political languages from English-speaking discussions to Russia (on the example of the Lausanne Covenant)
Abstract
The paper refers to the issue of distortions that political languages undergo when they are transferred from the English-speaking Protestant discussions to the Russian-speaking ones. The material for consideration is the text of the Lausanne Covenant of 1974 – the most significant Protestant document of the 20th century, as well as its official translation into Russian, published in 2011. John Stott and his co-authors of the original text have sought to express their opinion on the majority of the most controversial issues affecting both the purely theological and political issues. Thanks to their efforts, a document was created that served as the basis for the development of modern Protestant theology, including political theology. On the contrary, those responsible for the translation through their actions smoothed out all controversial aspects, and in some cases resorted to substantial replacements of the most “problematic” in their opinion fragments of the text. The consequence of this was a significant distance from each other not only between the two versions of the same text, but also related discussions in the respective linguistic contexts. This document makes it possible to trace, using its example, those distortions to which the corresponding idioms are subjected when they are transferred from one language context to another. Within the framework of the Cambridge School approach, this requires the study of the historical context of the origin and publication of these texts, the reconstruction of the main idioms, as well as the identification and interpretation of linguistic gestures and political moves that their authors made. In the course of the study, 19 language versions of the document were comprehensively studied, which allowed us to obtain a holistic picture of the development of Protestant discussions in different linguistic spaces. Through a detailed analysis of the Lausanne Covenant in English and Russian, as well as comparison with other existing translations and the involvement of a wide corpus of auxiliary literature, the author of this paper shows how a formally identical text turns from an ambitious political message into a more neutral confessional declaration. The study has shown that the main distortions in the transfer of the above languages from English-language discussions to Russia are not related to their untranslatability, but mainly to the traditionalist views of the translators and their reluctance to mention issues that are problematic from their point of view.
Philosophical thought. 2025;(8):63-73
63-73
The psychological mechanism of future image formation
Abstract
The subject of the research is the mechanisms of forming an individual image of the future and the possibility of their influence on the image of the future as a phenomenon of public consciousness. The article provides a brief overview of existing approaches to addressing the problem of the emergence of future images and offers a detailed examination of two psychological principles: metaphors and archetypes, which participate in forming visions of the future; both reveal the use of unconscious processes when contemplating the future. The authors illustrate with concrete examples that the desire to envision the future includes such attitudes of trans-individual consciousness through which the imagination of prospects is based on associative links with the present (metaphor) or engages universal thinking patterns (archetypes). Particular attention is paid to images of the future that function within Russian culture over the last two centuries. The research methodology involves extrapolating the heuristic potential of metaphors and archetypes to the study of the future. Identifying metaphors in images of the future reveals the psychological mechanisms that ensure their coherence within social groups. The use of archetypes to understand images of the future allows one to see unique "hints" coming from the collective unconscious that help organize discourse about the future. The novelty of the research lies in describing metaphors and archetypes as elements of the psychological mechanism for forming the image of the future. The use of metaphors in creating images of the future aids in structuring experience, conveying emotional experiences related to the future, and simplifying complex ideas. Archetypes present in perceptions of the future serve meaning-forming, structuring, and mimetic functions. The main conclusions of the research concern the presence of an adaptive mechanism of the psyche in reflections on the future, allowing one to cope with a fundamentally uncertain and potentially dangerous future situation. The authors believe that both the initial formation of future images and their secondary reconstruction by the researcher engage common psychological mechanisms—metaphors and archetypes. In this regard, it seems important when studying images of the future to capture not only the archetypes themselves but also the peculiarities of the set of archetypical plots, the specificity of their symbolic expression, and not merely to confirm the presence of various metaphors in the representation of the future but to highlight original metaphors or principles of their use in describing the future.
Philosophical thought. 2025;(8):74-92
74-92