Abstract: The subject of the study is the sacred and its role in the formation of a symbol in the context of A. F. Losev's dialectical-henological approach. The authors rely on dialectical henology (the doctrine of the One) Losev's theory, developed in the theory of "the very itself" as the non-predicate basis of any thing. Such a non-predicate basis of all things and the world as a whole ("the very itself"), according to the authors, appears in the archaic consciousness and culture as sacred. Based on the analysis of sources, the article compares the ideas of the sacred in culture and the dialectic of "the very itself". According to Losev, "the very itself" cannot be identified with an unknowable thing-in-itself, but is a source of meaningful and non-meaningful in a thing and is expressed in symbols of a specific individuality. Any sign is a symbol if it has two dimensions and has both transitive and non-transitive sides. As a symbol, on the one hand, it shows the indivisible existence of the One (meanings), and, on the other hand, it expresses an undifferentiated continuous One (sacred). There are two main approaches in the history of philosophy, going back to Plato and Aristotle. In the Neoplatonic approach, the symbol is understood as the unity of transitivity and non-transitivity. The latter is associated with the expression of the transcendent in the immanent. In the Aristotelian approach, developed in the rationalist tradition, transitivity is emphasized in the symbol. Comparative historical, dialectical methods and the method of typologization are used. Based on Losev's dialectical methodology, the conclusion is made about the greatest completeness of the dialectically specific theory of the symbol. On this basis, the specificity of the human essence, which is irreducible to robotic rationalism or to bestial irrationalism, is comprehended. The example of archaic cultural practices shows symbolism, the two-dimensional nature of human nature. The profane in culture is quite transitive, the sacred is non–transitive. The symbol connects these two spheres, forms transitions from one to the other. The novelty of the work lies in the application of A.F. Losev's dialectical-henological theory of the symbol to the study of the sacred and the two-dimensional nature of both the symbol and the human essence. The transitivity and non-transitivity of the symbol are shown in their dialectical unity, which makes it possible to connect, without mixing or dissolving one into the other, the sacred and profane sides of cultural life.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the problem of truth in the context of expansion of the universal in the history of philosophy. In first part, the authors reviews the mythological cognition of truth that leans on the cultural mechanisms, thanks to which a human becomes familiar with the movement of the global universal. Through familiarization with the truth, takes place the salvation of a human that the authors call a metaphysical birth. Second part of the article examines the philosophical comprehension of truth that is based on the graded and assigned functions of the mythological cognition, due to which generated a stricter demarcation of the abstract-universal and specific-universal. The scientific novelty consists in consideration of the problem of truth at various stages of the history of mythological and philosophical cognition through the prism of the categories of abstract-universal and specific-universal, transcendence and transgression. The history of philosophy reveals the trends, on one hand, the movement from ontological understanding of truth to gnoseological, associated with the transcendence reference to the abstract-universal; and on the other hand, the movement of return to the ontological apprehension of truth connected with the transgressive reference to the specific-universal.

Abstract: The subject of this research Is the main approaches to the problem of truth and their correlation with the works of the Russian religious philosophers. The following approaches are being determined: ontological, gnoseological, existential, and relativistic (nihilistic). The ontological approach is based on the principle of oneness of reasoning and being, where the truth is authentic being. Such approach emerges on the basis of mythological reasoning.  Gnoseological approach lies in contraposition of the subject and object of cognition. Existential approach is established on the so-called reference to the circumstances preceding the subject-object demarcation. The truth is being understood as the existence or value.  Relativistic approach in its development balances the definition of truth, eventually seeing it as fiction. In the works of the Russian religious philosophers we can observe an ontological trend, in which the truth is understood as “omnibeing”. According to V. S. Solovyev, the truth is perceived in “mystical” unity of rational and irrational aspects of a subject, in unity of the subject and object of cognition. In order to reveal the inner logic of such unity, A. F. Losev refers to the neo-Platonic dialectics. At the same time, Russian religious philosophers criticize the gnoseological approach, subjective-idealistic trends of existential approach, as well as relativistic (nihilistic) approach. The conclusion is made that the Russian religious philosophy is a peculiar continuation of the ancient and medieval ontological tradition. We can also observe mythological foundations of the specificity of Russian religious philosophy.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the concept of truth in the early works of A. F. Losev. It derives from the system of fundamental concepts developed by the philosopher. On one hand, he advances the problematics of the philosophy uni-totality associated with the “integral knowledge”, symbol, name, and myth, and on the other, reconstructs and develops Neo-Platonic dialectics and applies it as the main method. The concept of truth derives from the system of Neo-Platonic dialectics in Losev’s interpretation, which represents a categorical structure of the ancient cosmos. This is why the truth is being understood in ontological sense, which is considered as the development of V. S. Soloviev’s approach who defines the truth as “uni-total Absolute”. The author formulates the definition of truth in its ontological perception. The truth is being revealed as the uni-total Absolute in itself (as ultra-absolute and ultra-wise single), for itself (as uniseparate material eidos of the name), for other (as potency manifesting towards the removal on antagonistic contradictions). In the latter, the truth is being viewed in its connection with a myth.