MODERN PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION: FROM STATMENT OF RESEARCH PROBLEMS TO CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THEORETICAL CONTEXTS
O. M. Farkhitdinova
Ural Federal University named after the First President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin, Yekaterinburg, Russia
e-mail: ofarhetdin@mail.ru
Abstract. The article suggests a new meaning of the complex concept of «modern philosophy of religion». The configuration of the thematic framework for the analysis and evaluation of issues of theoretical significance and practical perspectives of the modern philosophy of religion is presented. The paradoxical nature of refined problems in the philosophy of religion is revealed, namely, the variants of the ways of vision expressed in the stylistic features of each author’s approach are generalized. Today, the interfacing of the boundaries of new scientific directions within the framework of philosophy and theology has become relevant. The migration of conceptual structures and the formation of new meanings occurs most intensively in the designated fields of humanitarian knowledge.
It is shown that in the modern philosophy of religion, the intersections of theological and philosophical discourses have actualized professional interest and discussions: about the status of «faith» in an individual perspective, about the diversity of cultural contexts and ways of relations between them; about the linguistic matrices of non-referential knowledge of modernity. In turn, the concretization, for example, of the meaning and understanding of “faith” in the context of the forms of knowledge of the epoch, leads to the processes of differentiation of the ways of knowledge, as one of the stages of transformation of branch knowledge.
The study analyzes the conditions that arose during the change in the paradigm of industry knowledge in the XXI century. The paradigm shift has led to a revision of the relationship between explanatory and descriptive models in the humanities. As a result of the study, the contradictions on the way of self-determination of the modern philosophy of religion are summarized, which allowed us to assess the status of this way of seeing problems in modern humanitarianism.
Research methodology: the analytical tools of digital religion (meaning: online religion, the theory of mediatization of religious meanings) are combined with the methods of theoretical conceptualization and analysis.
Theoretical results: the basic principles for determining the specific research field and problems of the modern philosophy of religion are formulated.
Practical significance: in the context of the revision of the meaning of the concept of «people», its decentralization, the ways of representing its capabilities in the practices of self-knowledge and sense-setting are changing. In the modern philosophy of religion, the ways in which problems are formulated make it possible to describe these changes most fully.
In the context of a complex differentiation of research areas, a variety of professional specializations, and interdisciplinary methods, the choice of any order becomes very subjective, so it is advisable to talk about the specifics of solving problems in the modern philosophy of religion and the influence of the peculiarities of national worldviews on this process.
Key words: modern philosophy of religion, digital religion, individual religiosity, corporate spirituality.
Acknowledgements. I would like to express my gratitude to the research group of the UrFU Religious Studies section (represented by Candidate of Philosophy Melnikova E. V.), the creative platform and the project scientific and educational Laboratory «160 DDD», «Association of National and Cultural Associations of the Sverdlovsk region» (Mirzoev F. M.) for their help and support in the research, discussion and valuable comments during the work on the article.
Cite as: Farkhitdinova, O. M. (2021) [Modern philosophy of religion: from the statment of research problems to the conceptualization of theoretical contexts]. Intellekt. Innovatsii. Investitsii [Intellect. Innovations. Investments]. Vol. 4, pp. 110–119. DOI: 10.25198/2077-7175-2021-4-110.
