Search

In the paper «War and game in cultorologic conception of J.Huizinga» was analyzed methodological groundings and results of J.Huizinga’s research of the essence of phenomenon of game and correlation between the concepts of war and game outside the frameworks of their metaphorical equation. Were disclosed key points of the analytics of the concept of game, was defined status of phenomenon of game as determinative factor of genesis and development of culture. At the same time was critically analyzed the idea of equation of war and game – J.Huizinga despite of being contemporary of two world wars and specialized in history, ignored essential features of war which allowed him to identify war and game in contradiction with historical data. J.Huizinga expands elements of action to all its essence, cultural phenomena are extrapolated to all human activity, he tries to avoid dichotomy «serious-not serious», he broadcasts conclusions from single facts to whole epochs. In these conditions identification of war as game is not relevant in spite of brilliant analytics of phenomenon of game.

In the paper «War and game in cultorologic conception of J.Huizinga» was analyzed methodological groundings and results of J.Huizinga’s research of the essence of phenomenon of game and correlation between the concepts of war and game outside the frameworks of their metaphorical equation. Were disclosed key points of the analytics of the concept of game, was defined status of phenomenon of game as determinative factor of genesis and development of culture. At the same time was critically analyzed the idea of equation of war and game – J.Huizinga despite of being contemporary of two world wars and specialized in history, ignored essential features of war which allowed him to identify war and game in contradiction with historical data. J.Huizinga expands elements of action to all its essence, cultural phenomena are extrapolated to all human activity, he tries to avoid dichotomy «serious-not serious», he broadcasts conclusions from single facts to whole epochs. In these conditions identification of war as game is not relevant in spite of brilliant analytics of phenomenon of game.

In the paper «Philosophia ad bellum» is being realized an attempt to classify philosophic approaches to the study of phenomenon of war by the analogy with the structure of «Just war theory» – 1. Philosophia ad bellum – «philosophy for war», where are investigated ways of using of philosophic methods of cognition in applied military sciences; 2. Philosophia supra bello – «philosophy above war», which investigates world­view, historic­philosophic, existential, logic­epistemological aspects of war; 3. Philosophia contra belli – «philosophy against war», where research of the essence of war gets its logical conclusion in grounding of the absurdity of thinking schemes which justify war as an act of violence. In the article was made historic­philosophic overview of the part «Philosophia ad bellum», where were showed tangent questions, which are considered by philosophic logic and theory of strategic intelligence. It was stated, that specialists if military intelligence admit the important role of researches in logic and theory of cognition in their professional work; were defined basic questions, which have the most essential interest for military professionals. There were analyzed ways of using of philosophic methods in developing military strategies, was made a conclusion that philosophy can be a basis of strategic failures and victories as well.

In the paper «Cognitive basis of military strategy: Kant and Clausewitz» was raised a question concerning possible correlations between transcendental philosophy of I.Kant and a project of military theory of C.von Clausewitz. Was elaborated an overview of modern sources related to this question, in the course of which was stated that opinions of the researchers on this problem written both by military specialists and philosophers have superficial character and do not reflect complexity of relations of Clauzewitz’ theory of war and Kantian transcendental philosophy. It was ascertained that C. von Clausewitz replicates Kantian transcendentalism in the following questions: evaluating role of strategic intelligence and military history; absolutist approach to the definition of war, understanding of total war, narrowing of the number of waging war to the decisive armed clashes. C. von Clausewitz follows the I.Kant’s transcendental rationalism building his own system not being based on the practical experience, but on the pure theory, as a result of rationalistic speculations. This approach caused formation of the academic school of military science in Germany, which entailed fatal consequences during World wars in Europe in the XXth century.