Contemporary Studies of Vladimir Solovyov’s Philosophy: Thomas Nemeth

V. Sidorin
{"title":"Contemporary Studies of Vladimir Solovyov’s Philosophy: Thomas Nemeth","authors":"V. Sidorin","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.033-045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the research of Thomas Nemeth, the largest modern American specialist in the history of Russian philosophy, related to the reception of Kantian philosophy, phenomenology in Russia, as well as the work of V.S. Solovyov. Russian philosophy has historically been characterized by a weak interest in epistemological problems, which affected the ways of development of “Kantian studies” in Russia: the perception of the ideas of the German thinker was set by ethical and ontological perspectives, which led, among other things, to the fact that the so-called ontological turn, having started in German neo-Kantianism in the last quarter of the XIX – first quarter of the XX centuries, was largely consonant with Russian philosophy of the beginning of the last century. It is concluded that the key role in such a perception of Kantian philosophy was played by the early Vl. Solovyov. The article T. Nemeth's interpretation of Solovyov's legacy is critically comprehended as an evidence of the failure of the philosophical project proper, the author's thesis about the inherent “ontological error” of V. Solovyov's philosophy, allegedly not allowing the Russian philosopher, with all the depth of the formulation of philosophical problems, to develop ways to resolve them properly, is analyzed. The conclusion is made that trying to comprehend the Russian philosophical tradition as a whole, Nemeth continues, albeit with a number of reservations, the line of its humanistic interpretation. The new English translation of “The Justification of Good”, made by T. Nemeth, is compared with the previous translation made by N. Duddington, being widely used in the English-speaking world. The conclusion is made about the comparative advantages of the new translation.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"166 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2022.3.033-045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article examines the research of Thomas Nemeth, the largest modern American specialist in the history of Russian philosophy, related to the reception of Kantian philosophy, phenomenology in Russia, as well as the work of V.S. Solovyov. Russian philosophy has historically been characterized by a weak interest in epistemological problems, which affected the ways of development of “Kantian studies” in Russia: the perception of the ideas of the German thinker was set by ethical and ontological perspectives, which led, among other things, to the fact that the so-called ontological turn, having started in German neo-Kantianism in the last quarter of the XIX – first quarter of the XX centuries, was largely consonant with Russian philosophy of the beginning of the last century. It is concluded that the key role in such a perception of Kantian philosophy was played by the early Vl. Solovyov. The article T. Nemeth's interpretation of Solovyov's legacy is critically comprehended as an evidence of the failure of the philosophical project proper, the author's thesis about the inherent “ontological error” of V. Solovyov's philosophy, allegedly not allowing the Russian philosopher, with all the depth of the formulation of philosophical problems, to develop ways to resolve them properly, is analyzed. The conclusion is made that trying to comprehend the Russian philosophical tradition as a whole, Nemeth continues, albeit with a number of reservations, the line of its humanistic interpretation. The new English translation of “The Justification of Good”, made by T. Nemeth, is compared with the previous translation made by N. Duddington, being widely used in the English-speaking world. The conclusion is made about the comparative advantages of the new translation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
索洛维约夫哲学的当代研究:托马斯·内梅特
本文考察了俄罗斯哲学史上最大的美国现代专家托马斯·内梅特(Thomas Nemeth)关于康德哲学、现象学在俄罗斯的接受的研究,以及V.S.索洛维约夫(V.S. Solovyov)的工作。俄罗斯哲学在历史上一直以对认识论问题兴趣淡薄为特征,这影响了俄罗斯“康德研究”的发展方式:对德国思想家思想的认知是由伦理和本体论观点所决定的,这导致了这样一个事实,即所谓的本体论转向,始于19世纪最后25年——20世纪前25年的德国新康德主义,在很大程度上与上世纪初的俄罗斯哲学一致。结论是,在这种对康德哲学的感知中,关键作用是由早期的Vl。索洛维约夫正在视察即将收获的。文章T. Nemeth对索洛维约夫遗产的解释被批判性地理解为哲学项目本身失败的证据,作者关于索洛维约夫哲学固有的“本体论错误”的论文,据称不允许俄罗斯哲学家以哲学问题的所有深度制定,发展出正确解决问题的方法,进行了分析。结论是,涅梅特试图从整体上理解俄罗斯哲学传统,尽管有一些保留,但仍继续其人文主义解释的路线。内梅特(T. Nemeth)的新版《善的正当性》(The Justification of Good)与达丁顿(N. Duddington)的新版《善的正当性》(The Justification of Good)在英语世界广泛使用。最后总结了新译本的比较优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The First Edition of “The Justification of Good” (1897): Contemporaries’ Response. Part 4 The image of Philostratus in the works of K.K. Vaginov: experience of deconstruction “Real Deed of an Artist” and Philosophy of Art: Solovyev – Fyodorov – Chekrygin V.Y. Bryusov, N.F. Fedorov and the Fedorovians of the 1900s-1920s: The Question of Meaning and Goals of Art. Article one. What were Bryusov and Fedorov Arguing about in the House of Yu.P. Bartenev V.I. Lamansky. Historical letters on the attitude of Russian people to their tribesmen. The letter VI
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1