The subject of this paper is the motto of the university Viśvabhāratī founded by Rabindranath Tagore in 1921: yatra viśvaṁ bhavati ekanīḍam. In spite of the world fame of the poet and his well researched biography, this motto has remained burdened with a number of questions. What is the “correct” form of this motto? In (by) what official document has this motto been fixed? By whom and when these words were proclaimed the motto of Viśva-bhāratī? From what source (text) these words have been taken? Why, in the vast literature about Tagore, this source (text) is never mentioned? The paper addresses these questions, but not for all of them clear answers are found. The most simple question has proved to be one about the source. It was not too difficult to find out that the motto of Viśva-bhāratī is a line (a pāda) from “chapter” 32 of the “Vājasaneyi-Saṁhitā” of the “White Yajur-veda”. But, while turning into the university motto, this line radically changed its meaning. In the Vedic context, the subject matter was Brahman (the Absolute) as the one and only essence of all that there is. The motto is interpreted as proclaiming the unity of humankind. In such a reinterpretation of an ancient text there is nothing extraordinary. As a rather similar case, we may recall Immanuel Kant’s motto “Sapere aude!” which is a reinterpreted quotation form an “Epistle” of Horace.

The article argues the position, according to which every ideal
is a complex of ideas and judgments expressing the desired normative image.
It allows defining more or less clearly the specific characteristics of the
proper state for a particular sphere of human life. The realization of ideals
occurs through the formation of value orientations complementary to them,
which determine the subsequent purposeful actions of individuals to transform
the natural and social environment in accordance with the parameters
set by these ideals. The authors propose to consider the concept of “whole
knowledge”, which is characteristic of Russian metaphysical thought, as an
ontognoseological ideal. Its implementation is aimed at designing methodological
approaches and specific techniques. The process of formation of the
“whole knowledge” ideal in Russian metaphysics, which had prerequisites in
Christian theological and philosophical thought, is analyzed. It is argued that
its fairly complete conceptualization was carried out by V.S. Solovyov. The
philosopher emphasized the conceptual and normative development of the
ideal of “whole knowledge”. However, later the difference in the ontological
and historiosophical views of some of his followers led to the formation of
another approach to understanding the ideal based on Christian eschatological
premises. They understood it not so much as the due norm of human
knowledge, but as its unattainable, but necessary goal.

The article considers the creative relationship between two notable Russian thinkers of the early twentieth century – Vladimir Frantsevich Ern (1882–1917) and Evgeny Nikolaevich Trubetskoy (1863–1919). For Ern, once a student and then an associate professor at Moscow University, the philosophical ideas of E.N. Trubetskoy’s brother, Sergei Nikolaevich Trubetskoy (1862–1905), turned out to be extremely important, Ern directly called him his teacher. As for the relations between the two representatives of the religious and philosophical group “Way”, E.N. Trubetskoy and V.F. Ern, despite the proximity of the ideological and theoretical platform, it is rather a history of confrontations. One example is E.N. Trubetskoy’s disagreement with the original version of the collective program statement of the Way group, in the creation of which Ern was directly involved. However, during their stay in Italy, both thinkers discover a similar understanding of modern Catholicism and V.S. Solovyov’s theocratic utopia. The article also deals with P.A. Florensky, M.K. Morozova, A.F. Losev.

The article is one of a series of works by the author, which considers the long and bizarre history of the study in Russia of the life and creative heritage of Grigory Savvich Skovoroda (1722–1794). The proposed article deals with the Russian thinker from Kiev Gustav Gustavovich Shpet (1879–1937). In the rich intellectual context of Russian philosophy, where almost all directions of European thought were represented, Shpet occupied a special place. A disciple of E. Husserl, he was a supporter and conductor of the ideas of phenomenological philosophy, in his own original edition, suggesting a rather critical attitude to a number of the teacher’s positions. That particular philosophical position markedly distinguished him from both the thinkers of the religious and philosophical group “Put’(Way)” and from the Russian thinkers of the neo-Kantian orientation from the circle of the international magazine “Logos”. Philosophy, in the understanding of Shpet, is pure autonomous knowledge, the subject of which is the field of the profound foundations and absolute principles. From such positions, Shpet tried to comprehend the specifics of Russian philosophy, its origins, issues, and historical deployment. With that in mind, he approached the consideration of the life and work of G.S. Skovoroda.

The article deals with the question of alternative ways of social development, critical reflection on technology, technical progress and the search for ways to overcome the technical crisis in Russian philosophy of the 19^th–21^st  centuries. The events of the social history, discoveries in the field of science and technology have led to a rethinking of the role of technological progress for the future of human civilization. In the 21st century the technical world appears as a world devoid of goodness and humanity, and the progress of technology, rather, as a regression. The technocratic trend is perceived in its fatal irresistibility as the defining vector of world history. Meanwhile, in the depths of the history of thought, we see serious attempts to resist the pressure of technical inevitability and offer alternatives to the modern project. In the article, the authors rely on the method of conceptual analysis, which allows comparing the proposed programs of social development in their opposition to the concept of the Modern. As a result of the analysis, the article highlights the general trends in the works of Russian thinkers towards the assessment of technical progress inherent in the technique of duality as a source of good and evil, as a cause of development and destruction and also drows a conclusion (in contrast to the established views) about the initial set of ideological foundations and prospects of society development, among which the program of technical progress and technical future is one of the possible, but not the determining.

The article is the first part of the reconstruction of the circumstances of the post-war life of L.P. Karsavin and I.L. Karsavina in Vilnius from July 1944 to July 1949. On a strictly documentary basis, the author methodically shows how the initial distrust of security officials towards the former ideologist of Eurasianism Lev Karsavin took shape in a chain of successive attempts by Lev Platonovich and Irina Lvovna to find their place in post-war Soviet reality, but ended in life tragedies for every member of the Karsavin family. They were largely predetermined by the insurmountable contradictions between the Christian views of the thinker, the serious illness of his daughter and the stake of the extremely ideologized state power on the repressive, forceful elimination of any manifestations of dissent and disagreement with the political course, that were further aggravated by the most difficult post-war situation in Lithuania. The author introduces into the scientific circulation many previously unknown documents of great importance for the history of Russian philosophy.