Alexandra M. ZHELNOVA 12. 23. 2002TWENTY-FIRST WORLD CONGRESS OF PHILOSOPHYPHILOSOPHY FACING WORLD PROBLEMSAugust 10-17, 2003. ISTANBUL TURKEYFederation Internationale des Societes de Philosophie.Philosophical Society of Turkey. Ahmet Rasim Sok.8/2, Cankaya06550 Ankara, Turkey/Tel.:90-312-440 08, Fax: 90-312-441 02 97. E-mail: toc@tfk.org.trFor Section _ " Contemporary Philosophy " Aleksandra M. ZHELNOVA (Àëåêñàíäðà Ìàðêîâíà ÆÅËÍÎÂÀ)M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, RussiaMoscow 129090, Meschanskaya str., 2, 2. Tel: (+7 095-284 54 09); E-mail: zhelnov@magn.phys.msu.ruProblem of dynamics of "measures" of paritiesAesthetic and Epistamic Comprehensions  in XXI century. ( philosophical ideas H. Putnam, H-G.Gadamer and R.Rorty today.)The problem of dynamics of "measures" of parities aesthetic and epistamic Comprehensions in XXI century is a special case of wider problem. Namely: problems of dynamics of "measures" of parities "base intention forms" of orientations of the person in the world: Comprehension (Truth), Beauty (the Beautiful) and the Blessings (Religious - Moral). Presently special interest those changes which are connected to constant transition to self-creation essentially new, sooner or later creating "new represent mainly rules of game". Not denying force tradition, fixed, for example, in language, all the same for each historical epoch exists and "average representatives” historically determined for it essentially excellent from each other specific base "intention forms". In similar "changeabilities" it is necessary to open and something "constant". Though "epistamic", "aesthetic" and "ethical" substantially change in time, nevertheless in all epoch the certain "measure" enough steady distinction between these “base intention forms " and their functions which are inherent anthropogenesis persons ab ovo is kept. Having left in the party "ethical" aspect, we compare only "aesthetic" and "epistamic".During gradual development to the period European New Times philosophies "epistamic comprehension", eventually, appears based on unity of some historical, but definitely hierarchical "intention forms": Comprehension (Truth), Beauty (the Beautiful) and the Blessings (Religious - Moral). In "epistamic comprehension" uncertainty gradually is as though overcome through aspiration to reach definiteness in "theories" (or even in symbolism "gnosises"). "Aaesthetic" comprehension, on the contrary, essentially may not leave from uncertainty concerning direct - sensual perception of the World in "epistemes". And in art - aesthetic images with inevitability the sense of aspiration to the future is allocated. Thus nevertheless "definiteness" is reached by any way as though contrary to "expanded uncertainty” having a place.Based on such initial position, the ideal of classical rationality was destroyed in philosophy in the beginning of XX century. This crash of a classical ideal of rationality occured first of all at a level of culture of "elites", "scientific cultures”. However, "system of preconditions” of "measures” of  parities "aesthetic" and "epistamic", is inherent not only to the educated person of the given epoch, but also representations "national" cultures (with all inherent in them prejudices, myths, magic etc.). Anyhow "masscult" (from it "greater affinity" to aesthetic perception of the world) always renders resolute resistance to any innovations, not agreeed with habitual. Sooner or later "aesthetic" should take "revenge" from "suppressed " it "epistamic" (and also "gnostic" and, we shall notice by the way, "ethical").1Let's concentrate attention on separate, descriptive the allocated ways of judgement of "measures” of  parities "aesthetic" and "epistamic" in comprehension. Namely: at H. Putnam as representative "neo-analytical philosophies"; in concept H-G Gadamer  as representative "neo-onto-phenomenological directions"; and, at last, in frameworks theoretical concepts "neo-pragmatisms" R.Rorty. Why on them?.Concepts "aesthetic " in comprehension starting with "neo-analytical" preconditions consider "measure" parity "aesthetic" and "epistamic” in a context of criticism of the certain forms and principles "classical rationalities". For example criticism: ideas transcendental the subject as "pure" founding consciousnesses; a principle according to which those forms of knowledge which are qualified as scientific, have independent epistemologic the status; presumptions "exclusive" validity and immanence scientific types of knowledge and other. Thus consideration "aesthetic" in quality of historically determined structure in "neo-analytics", as a rule, is not accompanied by its naturalization. The onto-phenomenological direction (developed in XX century one of the most influential philosophical paradigms) keeps many major features of classical philosophizing. For example, a principle of an absolute substantiation of knowledge at explicit expressed distancing from kantian philosophies. It in many respects defines specificity of the onto-phenomenological approach to a theme "aesthetic" in comprehension. As if to "neo-pragmatisms" the reference to this current allows to look after rather remarkable inversion of a problematics "aesthetic" in comprehension. "Aesthetic" in comprehension it is necessary here as an explication of a principle of "contingency", with certain (following of this circumstance) the major in the theoretical attitude consequences. The reference to these currents once again allows to show with all definiteness, that the parity of "measures" "aesthetic" and "epistamic" in comprehension (and also all set correlative to it of a problematics) may not be reduced to uniform is universal to the certain theoretical form.Let's stop on it in more detail.2.Let's begin with " neo-analytical " representations Hilary Putnam (Putnam H. Reason, Truth and History. Cambr. 1981). Putnam specifies, that absolute distinction between such subjects as a science and an aesthetics (or a policy) by criteria of requirements of true and objectivity historically may not be considered any more as reliable (p. 172). The exact sciences also normative. The conclusions about what theories to accept, or even about what questions to put, are done by scientists under influence of values and systems of belief. In the principal image these conclusions do not differ from what take place in "aesthetic" or "political" discurs. "Supertask" Putnam consist in this case in destroying that authority which the natural sciences have found above a philosophical idea in XX century. Though Putnam is not hostile to a science, he rejects an identification of rational thinking with scientific thinking, rejects also idea that the science gives the unique true description of the validity. The preference of this or that "kinds of representation" is consequence of presence at us some "systems representations" these kinds. Function of an estimation is not separated from a subject. "Aesthetic" it is allocated with independent objectivity and truth. From here, in our opinion, a conclusion, that all mentioned above is result of serious changes of "systems representations" most "post-analytical philosophies" (neo-analytical ) in comparison with tradition previous to it.So, "Aestisation" "actual reality" at Putnam fixes the tendency, road laying to within the framework of "post-analytical" philosophies. And it alongside with "common metaphysical installation" finding out postulated extremely accurately, and with characteristic respect for the tradition, determining any philosophizing. Becomes obvious, that positions from which reasonings are conducted today, have changed. Therefore have changed: as scopes of the accepted conceptual circuits and "idealized a rational acceptability", and a corner of consideration of these of "new" areas - scientific knowledge, logic, a policy, ethics and an aesthetics. And position by last in the field of "legitimacies - nonlegitimacies" forming criterion becomes more and more steady.3.Now we shall proceed to consideration of position Hans-Georg Gadamer (Gadamer H.-G. Wahrheit und Method. Grundzuge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. J.C.B.Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Tubingen. 1960). The philosophy should participate in judgement of "various forms of rational creativity", not resorting to "despotism of system of concepts", believes Gadamer. To comprehend "objective data" (as which it understands so-called "meant") "such what she there was" interpreter not may. The concept of game in due time was entered in a German aesthetics for definition of a work of art. Game as that "has the purpose in itself". If to speak about game with reference to a work of art, writes Gadamer game "means not behaviour and the more so not the emotional constitution of the one who creates a work of art or enjoys it, and at all freedom of subjectivity..., and a way of life of the work of art" (p. 97). Game, instead of playing is the subject. Language is game because it, instead of speaking individual is the subject of speech. "Game plays, involving in itself players"(p. 464) - aphoristically writes Gadamer. Through concept of game at Gadamer language and art incorporate. "For the characteristic hermeneutic a phenomenon, - he writes, - as the same concept of game is applied to experience the Beautiful. If we understand the text its sense is exact as involves us, as us grasps the Beautiful...". From here and conclusion Gadamer: the further will defend from us on time product, the more easy to us it to understand. The understanding, hence, is considered Gadamer by analogy to the aesthetic, disinterested pleasure - by game. Definition playing at Gadamer is, that playing not identical with itself. "Playing or the poet is not present more - is only played by them" (p. 107). Game is a continuous movement, continuous swinging from one to another that is why in game always should be two. “That game was available, - writes Gadamer, - not necessarily should play another, but always there should be something another with what plays playing. So, playing cat chooses skein a wool because it plays with it" (ibid.).Playing not identical with itself, as against the subject of theoretical knowledge and moral behaviour. It any more the subject even, is historicity, life "in horizon of time". As a prototype of a history serves at Gadamer a work of art. Therefore the true attitude to a history should be same, as well as to a work of art: contemplation of its self-sufficing life completed in.So, Gadamer disinterestedly offers to behold understood as behold a work of art. "Aesthetic indistinguishability" and "aesthetic dispassionatenesses " from tradition demands Gadamer, that, by the way, and testifies to development of ideas Heidegger by him about clearing "aesthetic " from an aesthetics.4.At last, about position Richard Rorty (Heidegger, Contingency and Pragmatism//See: Rorty R. Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers. Vol.2. Cambridge, 1", p.27-49). The edge of criticism Rorty directs against "fundamentalism" and "ideologies of Truth", with natural to last precondition about an opportunity of "demarcations of opinion and knowledge". In the general view his criticism is directed against a recognition of philosophy to a theoretical basis and a nucleus of modern culture, against fastening to philosophy of the status of fundamental, legislative discipline, as if having "exclusive access to a reality".From point of view Rorty, the philosophy may not apply for the leading part in modern culture. It "final dictionary" (categorialy the device and an opportunity which it gives) is no more perfect and convenient for the educational purposes, believes Rorty, than at others "genres” of cultures, such as "poetry"or "literary criticism"(p. 158). Decanonization philosophies as general-theoretical science coincides at Rorty with "rehabilitation” of literatures, histories, ethnographies, other humanitarian disciplines, it is traditional (in "theoretically focused" societies) considered minor or insufficiently strict. Simultaneously in "postphilosophical culture" rigid borders between scientific and unscientific discursis, strict and not strict forms of knowledge down to almost full disappearance of their demarcation are washed away. Impossibility to find a substantiation of our knowledge or our beliefs in firm principles and the beginnings, like platonian ideas, kantian aprioristic categories of mind, karnapian "sensual data" etc., in opinion Rorty, beat out ground from under legs not only philosophies, but also sciences. The science more does not describe a reality, it adapts to last with the help of "metaphorical pictures". As the knowledge, from his point of view, does not copy, and cooperates, cope a reality distinction between "firm" sciences (natural sciences and mathematics) and "soft" sciences (all case of humanitarian disciplines) appear insignificant: both that and another - only different languages invented for achievement of the different purposes. Levelling of demarcation puts the end to old fluctuation of philosophy between a science and art, transforming philosophy in "special genre of literary criticism". In "neo-pragmatic", believes Rorty, epistemology - "simply is not present". With overcoming epistemology, in opinion Rorty, philosophy as the discipline is not eliminated, it is transformed to other quality - in "literary criticism", hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is "everything, that remains from the philosophy liberated from epistemologic networks"(Rorty R. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, 1979. p.325)So, we have considered specificity "comprehensions as orientations" in "neo-pragmatic of ethos" R.Rorty. We shall note still, that at Rorty all is reduced to orientation of the person in the world of consequences first of all "casual" events almost excluding necessity. 5.The problem of dynamics of "measures” of parities "aesthetic" and "epistamic" comprehension puts a question on two processes resisting each other. On the one hand, it is historically obvious, that between different steps of comprehension there was a certain hierarchy, on the other hand, - undoubtedly, that this hierarchy is dynamical. In this process a primate and domination do not belong to any of steps. Therefore it is more correct to speak about revealing some tendency in frameworks description the allocated ways of judgement "aesthetic" in modern epistemology.In a history of philosophy it is possible to specify the following tendencies expressed in attempts "suppress" concept "aesthetic" under concept epistemologic of "truth". First of all, for example, when a word "truth" gets in scientific use value of equality of our representations to external objects. "Aesthetic" it is found out in sensual perception. It is estimated on that as far as some valid reality is adequately submitted. It is not surprising, that in such system of preconditions the artist turns in unlucky the scientist who may not rise above a level "lowest gnosiology". Besides the specified tendency takes place and then when "aesthetic" it is represented as conformity of a thing of own essence, i.e. "beautiful" thing is such thing which most adequately corresponds to own essence. And, at last, when "aesthetic" it is understood in spirit of the embodied public ideal. “The Beautiful” frequently it is understood as display any persons “natural a nature”. However, all similar attempts to subordinate "aesthetic" "epistamic" appear insolvent. "Aesthetic" itself has requested to itself an autonomy. "Epistamic" not only has not kept domination. In the concepts considered by us it in the greater or to a lesser degree appears caused "aesthetic". So in "neo-analytics" Hilary Putnam "aesthetic estimation" precedes all actual statements. In "neo-onto-phenomenological" epistemologic Hans-Georg Gadamer's concepts disinterestedly are offered to be beheld understood as behold a work of art. He demands "aesthetic indistinguishability" and "aesthetic dispassionatenesses". At last, within the framework of "neo-pragmatists" Richard Rorty in a new fashion misinterpreting the concept "vital world" supposing “some prereflective complete knowledge". Finally the role epistemology as "intermediary in mutual understanding of people" in the form "poetic discurs" affirms. . ******Thus, the revealed tendencies allow to speak not only about essential change of habitual representations about "place" aesthetic in epistemology. To the end of XX century, find out themselves: any character "epistamic", on the one hand, and compulsoriness "aesthetic" - with another .The vector and a degree of "measures" prevalence of one over another have essentially changed: "aesthetic" and "epistamic". To the beginning of XXI century former domination "epistamic" above "aesthetic" has lost the force. Preconditions of amplification of the tendency of influence "aesthetic" on "epistamic". "Aesthetic" today are imperously enough shown escapes authority "epistamic". It overcomes restrictions, superimposed on it before omnipotent "epistamic". Aesthetic" itself shows rights on domination.Alexandra M. ZHELNOVA 12. 23. 2002Alexandra M. ZHELNOVA 12. 23. 2002TWENTY-FIRST WORLD CONGRESS OF PHILOSOPHYPHILOSOPHY FACING WORLD PROBLEMSAugust 10-17, 2003. ISTANBUL TURKEYFederation Internationale des Societes de Philosophie.Philosophical Society of Turkey. Ahmet Rasim Sok.8/2, Cankaya06550 Ankara, Turkey/Tel.:90-312-440 08, Fax: 90-312-441 02 97. E-mail: toc@tfk.org.trFor Section _ " Contemporary Philosophy " Aleksandra M. ZHELNOVA (Àëåêñàíäðà Ìàðêîâíà ÆÅËÍÎÂÀ)M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, RussiaMoscow 129090, Meschanskaya str., 2, 2. Tel: (+7 095-284 54 09); E-mail: zhelnov@magn.phys.msu.ruProblem of dynamics of "measures” of paritiesAesthetic and Epistamic Comprehensions  in XXI century. ( philosophical ideas H. Putnam, H-G.Gadamer and R.Rorty today.)1. The problem of dynamics of " measures” of parities aesthetic and epistamic comprehensionin XXI century is a special case of wider problem, a problem of dynamics of "measures” of parities "base intention forms of "orientations of the person in the world: Comprehension (Truth), Beauty (the Beautiful) and the Blessings (Religious - Moral). Namely: their constant transition to self-creation essentially new, sooner or later creating "new rules of game". In XXI century "aesthetic" itself has requested to itself an autonomy. Sooner or later in dynamics of "measures” of parities aesthetic and epistamic Comprehensions, "aesthetic" should take a resolute "revenge" at "suppressed" it before omnipotent "epistamic"(and also "gnostic" and, we shall notice by the way, "ethical").And it occurs.2. In "neo-analytics" Hilary Putnam "aesthetic estimation" precedes all actual statements.3. In "neo-onto-phenomenological" epistemologic Hans-Georg Gadamer's concepts disinterestedly are offered "to be beheld understood as behold a work of art". Philosopher demands "aesthetic indistinguishability" and "aesthetic dispassionatenesses".4. At last, within the framework of "neo-pragmatists" Richard Rorty in a new fashion misinterpreting the concept "vital world" supposing some "prereflective complete knowledge". Finally analysis the role epistemology as "intermediary in mutual understanding of people" in the form "poetic discurs" affirms.5. A conclusion. By the end of XX century, find out itself: any character "epistamic", on the one hand, and compulsoriness "aesthetic" - with another. The vector and a degree of "measures" prevalence of one over another have essentially changed: "aesthetic" and "epistamic". To the beginning of XXI century former domination "epistamic" above "aesthetic" has lost the force. Preconditions of amplification of the tendency of influence "aesthetic" on "epistamic". "Aesthetic" today are imperously enough shown escapes authority "epistamic". It overcomes restrictions, superimposed on it before omnipotent "epistamic". “Aesthetic" itself shows rights on domination. Alexandra M. ZHELNOVA 12. 23. 2002