The article analyzes the differences between the philosophical traditions of the West and the East. Among the foundations of Chinese philosophy, the main categories of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism are differentiated and separately presented. The understanding of this difference gives us the key to several mysteries in the development of Chinese society and to the understanding of how traditional Chinese philosophy affects interpersonal relations in modern China. In particular, the article discusses the concept of ancient Chinese ethics as the basis for religious and scientific views of traditional and modern Chinese society. In addition, the article indicates that the human-centered Chinese morality, oriented outside of human experience, determines the relationship between people and the outside world. The paper also provides a comparison of Christian and Chinese ethics. Since people are one of the most important factors of governance, it makes sense to understand how differently people behave in different countries. The study was conducted with the use of comparative analysis and document research methods. Reflecting on interpersonal relations through ancient Chinese philosophical thoughts, the authors try to explain the problem of Needham (The Great Question) and interpret the modern meaning of the philosophy of science using the philosophical truth of modern interpersonal relations. From this point of view, the thoughts contained in the article are of interest and novelty. In the context of researching Needham’s problem, the authors compare socio-political and religious traditions in China and Europe. The paper also discusses the guanxi mystery — the basis of social and business relationships that have a «quasi-family» trusting nature. In addition, when discussing the peculiarities of modern business relations, the text unfolds the mystery of mianzi, which determines the understanding of reputation and human dignity. From the point of view of philosophy, human is the first of the motivations in science, as well as one of the most important factors of influence in modern management, the authors try to investigate the characteristics of humanity of different countries in order to explain the behavior of people. The study also provides a basis for studying the role of the human factor in governance.

The article deals with the problem of Nikolai Berdyaev’s reception and interpretation of the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. We attempt to reconstruct Berdyaev’s attitude to the creative heritage of the great German philosopher. The phenomenon of Nietzsche was mainly perceived by the Russian philosophy of the early 20th century in a religious context. For Berdyaev himself, the personality of Nietzsche became one of the starting points for comprehending the existential dialectic of human destiny in the world historical process. In Nietzsche’s works, Berdyaev was first of all captivated by the eschatological theme the philosopher addressed, his striving for the end and the limit. Berdyaev called Nietzsche the greatest phenomenon of modern history, dialectically completing the humanistic anthropology of the West. The Russian philosopher viewed Nietzsche as the forerunner of a new religious anthropology, a religious prophet of the West, making a return to the old European humanism no longer possible. Berdyaev was convinced of the need to overcome and internalize the spiritual experience of Nietzsche. The latter opens up the prospect of transition to a new anthropological era, in which human existence must be justified by creativity. Berdyaev viewed creativity as a new religious revelation of Christianity, not manifested in patristic tradition and historical Christianity. In creative acts, man overcomes objectification as a fallen state of the world. The article examines the key ideas of Nietzsche’s philosophy through the prism of religious existentialism and personalism of Berdyaev. Berdyaev’s attitude to Nietzsche was ambivalent: on the one hand, he highly appreciated how radically the German philosopher formulated the problem of a person’s creativity; on the other hand, he viewed the anti-Christian concept of the superman, leading to human godhood, as absolutely unacceptable for Russian religious philosophy and Christianity. Berdyaev assessed the new revelation of Nietzsche about the superman and the will to power as false and demonic, radically contradicting the foundations of Christian anthropology about man and the religious ethics of creativity.

This article explores a fundamental shift in the humanities called the «visual turn». We are talking about the transformation of visuality in the late 19th – early 20th centuries. The difficulty of analyzing  this phenomenon is due to the fact that the modern humanities have not yet developed a single subject and method for studying the visual turn. In this article, the turn as a transition from the classical to the non-classical observer is analyzed as a transformation of the very human presence in the world. The change in visuality is primarily associated with a change in the concept of the classical transcendental subject and the transition to understanding the affected and temporal subject of our time. In this article, we analyze the transformation of subjectivity based on the three-part mechanism of the power of distance, the power of gaze, and the power of memory, which was proposed by W. Benjamin. We show that at the beginning of the 20^th century there takes place rethinking of a person’s presence in the world through the understanding of the destruction of the distance between the subject and the object (the world), a change in the power of gaze and a change in the role of memory in the perception of what is seen. The visible no longer acts as directly given to the subject, but presupposes the power of visual perception and the special role of memory in what is seen. This means that in modern non-classical concepts of visuality, an attempt is made to understand the act of seeing as an event of the formation of a subject. In this three-part mechanism of visual distance, the power of gazing into the visible and the role of memory in what is seen, the act of seeing becomes the very presence of modern man. However, in this case, the presence in the act of seeing eludes the subject of experience himself. Thus, visual experience in the form of a present consciousness of the world that is eternally and always does not correspond to it, is an unconscious atrophy of the most apathetic «narcissist» of vision. The article concludes that the lack of understanding of this moment of presence of the modern subject results in the fact that both the return of distance within the framework of the concept of the classical observer and the complete destruction of the aura within the concepts of the non-classical observer lead to a theoretical impasse in understanding the very experience of non-classical vision.

Тhe article explores the question of being. Its relevance is revealed through ontological obligations. This question belongs to the domain of the transcendent, the subject of metaphysics. Being is considered through the concepts «order of being», «predicates of being» and «dignity of being». The paper introduces the concepts of inreality and connected being and gives the argument of the «third being». The concepts of real and ideal, some types of proofs of existence are discussed. The dilemma of being is formulated, which is formed by the recognition that being exists upon condition that being is an action and acts directly, on the one hand, and, on the other, by the recognition that being acts through some phenomenon, therefore it is identified with some object and is considered objective, mediated being. In other words, it is a statement about the existence of being in itself and being distributed in a certain order, the order of being, namely: the existence of things, being, essence, man, etc. The aspects of the dilemma of being are created by the differentiation between being and becoming, being and living, being and thinking. These ontological distinctions lead to such resolution of the dilemma of being when being is recognized as: 1) the measure of things that they «matter (are the essence)» and that they «are not the essence», i.e, become; 2) the measure of things that make sense and those that do not, and 3) the measure of things imaginable and unimaginable. As a result, the paper offers the following definition of being: being is immediacy as such (non-objective being) which combines the immediacy of things, actions, phenomena, processes, sensations, etc. (objective being).

In recent decades, there have been changes in research strategies concerning the study of space. It used to be perceived as a motionless «container», a receptacle for people and objects that does not affect social processes in any way, but now reciprocal relations between space and society are recognized. Space affects human behavior, and people transform it in accordance with the economic, political and cultural characteristics of their era. The same approach can be applied to the study of publicity and privacy. The public space is generally understood as an environment open to the public: streets, parks, etc., while the private area is primarily a place of living, a place of family life. Being sociocultural constructs, public and private spaces are not originally specified. In European societies of the Modernity, due to the processes of urbanization and individualization, the need for one’s own accommodation, closed from outsiders, is gradually increasing. Being in a public or private space affects the behavior of a person, who is forced to play a social role in public and can behave naturally in the family circle. The separation of the public and the private in the 19^th century is perceived as a dichotomous example of the social order, considered to be natural. There are formed strictly differentiated gender roles that influence the norms of male and female behavior. A man should spend most of his life outside the home, earning money to maintain his family It is a woman’s responsibility to create home comfort and care for children. However, in the modern sense, social constructs of publicity and privacy are not considered «innate» or «natural». Public and private spaces always depend on sociocultural processes and therefore do not have an ontologically determined character.

The article deals with the philosophical and cultural issues of the transgenderism phenomenon as seen through the modern concept of androgyny. The 20th century became a turning point for many scientific areas, including the humanities. Due to the activity of feminist movements, there took place a drastic revision of gender-based sociocultural patterns and the ontological status of a woman was changed (starting from Simone de Beauvoir). Moreover, a woman’s intrinsic value and independence from a man were proved and postulated. A distinct concept of gender (socially constructed characteristics of men and women). In the last third of the 20^th century, that led to the emergence of an independent interdisciplinary scientific area named «Gender Studies», whose field of interest included studies of social and cultural phenomena using the theory of social sex (gender). Furthermore, the issues of self-identification and gender identity began to occupy a special place. The «transgender revolution» that took place at the beginning of the 21^st century mainstreamed the transgender phenomenon again. It became the most striking and widespread form of expressing «other gender». However, it should be noted that any modern variation of the «third sex» is based on the Platonic idea of androgyny, which finds its reflection in modern gender models. Therefore, it is becoming extremely important to consider transgenderism as a phenomenon that forms a separate cultural discourse in the context of the modern idea of androgyny. We make an attempt to identify common metaphysical features of both anthropological phenomena (transgender and androgyne) and to assume their «ontological affinity».

Recent studies of socially aversive (negative) personality traits have focused on the expansion of different concepts and models. As a result, there emerged the Dark Tetrad personality model (which includes Machiavellianism, subclinical psychopathy, narcissism, and sadism). The paper provides a review of current works on the Dark Tetrad of personality. According to recent research, everyday sadism is a personality trait characterized by a tendency to purposefully humiliate people, causing physical, sexual or psychological suffering for the sake of pleasure. Similar manifestations of everyday sadism and the Dark Triad are antisocial behavior in everyday life and on the Internet. Everyday sadism is the best predictor of various features: deviant behavior in adolescents, affective and cognitive empathy, unprovoked aggression, bullying, cyberbullying, and counterproductive work behavior. Sadism and psychopathy have the «darkest» properties. In general, the results of the studies demonstrate that (1) sadism leads to greater stability of the Dark Tetrad as a complex of personality traits, (2) all of the «dark» properties overlap empirically and theoretically, and (3) the Dark Core is described by empathy deficit (callousness) and manipulativeness rather than other characteristics (e.g. Factor 1 of psychopathy).

The aim of the work is to study time perspective and subjective age as determinants of psychological well-being and health-related life quality of people at the late ontogenesis stage, leading a different lifestyle. Based on the results of the ZPTI Questionnaire (F. Zimbardo), «Age-of-me» (B. Barak), SF-36 «Health status survey» and «Psychological well-being Scales» (К. Riff) the features of the time perspective, subjective age, health self-assessment and psychological well-being are analyzed in groups of pensioners (58–93 years old) leading a different lifestyle: elderly non-working people who receive home-based social services and elderly non-working people which lead an active lifestyle. It is shown that the categories «time perspective» and «subjective age» express a person’s attitude to time, but relate to different aspects of individuality. Subjective age is more connected with the assessment of physical health status — the physical component of health-related life quality. Time perspective is more connected with personal characteristics — psychological component of health-related life quality; psychological well-being. Self-assessment of health and psychological well-being are closely correlated with the attitude to the present and the past. While the future is in a zone of high uncertainty. The younger the subjective age, the higher the indicators of psychological well-being and health-related life quality. An active lifestyle is a resource that allows pensioners to assess biological and social subjective age younger, be more future-oriented, and have higher indicators of health-related life quality. Health limitations and home lifestyle observed in a reduced health self-assessment and close correlations of all the variables studied. The 65–74 years period, compared to the 58–64 and 75–93 years periods, is characterized by higher indicators of life quality, psychological well-being and the predominance of a balanced time perspective. The main changes in the late-aged people life begin after the age of 75: a decrease in all indicators of health-related life quality and psychological well-being (except for «Autonomy»), as well as an increased focus on the «Fatalistic Present». Thus, the research shows the correlations between attitude to time and age and psychological well-being and health self-assessment. There is almost no study of subjective age in our country. Therefore our work allows us to expand knowledge about subjective age in the Russian sample.

The advent of the digital age has become a serious challenge for researchers in various fields of scientific knowledge. Among others, this refers to sociology, which tried to give an adequate answer to the question of how the world is changing. The purpose of this article is to outline the contours of a new sociological field — digital sociology, which has been actively developing in recent years. The article provides an overview of Russian and international studies that have contributed to the formation of the scope of research and research objectives of digital sociology. It focuses on digital society, which appears due to the development and implementation of modern technological infrastructure represented by key digital technologies (communication networks, big data technologies, algorithms and complex algorithmic systems, platforms, artificial intelligence technologies, cloud computing, augmented and virtual reality technologies, etc.). This extremely complex infrastructure has a decisive influence on the emergence of new social practices, on identity, on the everyday life of both the individual and society as a whole. Digital sociology aims to theorize critically about digitalization, datafication, algorithmization, and platformization, and to determine the social implications of these processes. Moreover, digital sociology offers a range of methodological techniques and tools based on digital technologies that provide new possibilities for quantitative and qualitative sociological research. Digital sociology is also seen as a professional sociological practice which includes teaching the discipline, carrying out scientific communications, and sharing the results of sociologists’ scientific work.

Based on the concept of explicit and latent potential of historical and sociological heritage for the study of modern types and forms of social inequality manifestation, the article examines the importance of ideas and theories developed by sociologists to identify the essence of the digital divide and its determinants. The article substantiates the author’s position that the approaches to the analysis of digital divide that are developing in modern sociology are based on theories and ideas presented in the classic and post-classic sociological heritage. The article provides the application of the main ideas of the formation and reproduction of social inequality by O. Comte (formation of categories of the patriciate and proletariat in society), K. Marx (influence of economic factors on reproduction of social inequality), G. Simmel (phenomenon of alienation in society), M. Weber (influence of social status on social inequality in society), E. Durkheim (influence of demographic factors on reproduction of social inequality), P. Bourdieu (formation of an aggregate of an individual’s capital as a factor of social inequality) and E. Giddens (influence of innovations, including information technologies, on the formation of social inequality) in the works of both foreign and Russian researchers devoted to the study of factors that determine the digital divide. In addition, the paper provides a classification of the considered concepts of social inequality and structuralizes ideas about the digital divide factors in accordance with the logic of this classification. The authors conclude that the sociological heritage contains both explicit and latent potential for understanding the phenomenon of digital divide.

The article discusses the research approaches applied in sociology and the ideas of authors from other fields of scientific knowledge with regard to the problem of people with disabilities and understanding of the essence of the rehabilitation environment for them. The humanization of modern society, its orientation towards the development and activation of weakly protected social groups, traditionally considered discriminated, requires, in this regard, a rethinking of scientific approaches to the problem of the disabled and the creation of full-fledged living conditions for their functioning, including the possibility of timely reception of social services and rehabilitation technologies within the framework of rehabilitation environment. The practical absence of the concept of «rehabilitation environment for a disabled person» in modern sociological science enables us to conduct an appropriate analysis and substantiate the essence of this category based on the structural-functional, institutional, systemic, constructivist, phenomenological, and other approaches. Following the results of this analysis, we present the levels and structure of the rehabilitation environment for people with disabilities, formulate its main functions and principles, and also determine the internal and external factors that influence its functioning. We conclude that the rehabilitation environment for a disabled person is the interaction of various forms of social and rehabilitation relations based on the presence of special conditions and resources for the implementation of vital needs and rehabilitation requests focused on the actualization of the rehabilitation potential, on a decent quality of life. The main elements of the rehabilitation environment are rehabilitation institutions at different levels of management (macro-, meso-, microlevel) with clearly expressed functions of subject-object regulation, etc.