Pub Date : 2022-11-17DOI: 10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-167-180
G. V. Biserov
The paper examines the early discussion on the role of Heraclitus in Nietzsche’s philosophy, including some relatively little-known contributions by R. Oehler, E. Bertram and A. Baeumler, as well as more widely mentioned interpretations of K. Jaspers, M. Heidegger and K. Löwith. I show that in the 1890s–1930s the significant influence of Heraclitus on Nietzsche’s thought was considered indisputable. However, interpretations of the period can be divided into the ‘authentic’ ones (e.g., Oehler, Löwith), each of which view Nietzsche’s use of Heraclitus thought as significant for Nietzsche’s own philosophy, and ‘idiosyncratic’ ones (e.g. Heidegger, Jaspers), which, by interpreting Nietzsche from their own idiosyncratic perspectives, naturally put less philosophical weight on reading Nietzsche from the standpoint of Heraclitus. This review leads to the conclusion that a study of Nietzsche’s Heraclitus can contribute to two contemporary debates in Nietzsche studies: the discussion on Nietzsche’s ontological position and to the discussion around the so-called continuity thesis.
本文考察了关于赫拉克利特在尼采哲学中的作用的早期讨论，包括R. Oehler, E. Bertram和A. Baeumler的一些相对鲜为人知的贡献，以及更广泛提及的对K. Jaspers, M. Heidegger和K. Löwith的解释。我表明，在19世纪90年代至30年代，赫拉克利特对尼采思想的重大影响被认为是无可争辩的。然而，对这一时期的解释可以分为“真实”的(例如，Oehler, Löwith)，每个人都认为尼采对赫拉克利特思想的使用对尼采自己的哲学具有重要意义，以及“特殊”的(例如，海德格尔，雅斯贝尔斯)，通过从他们自己的特殊角度解释尼采，自然地减少了从赫拉克利特的立场阅读尼采的哲学重量。通过对尼采的《赫拉克利特》的回顾，我们可以得出这样的结论:对尼采的本体论立场的讨论和对所谓的连续性论点的讨论，对尼采的《赫拉克利特》的研究可以促成当代尼采研究中的两个争论。
{"title":"Heraclitus in Nietzsche’s Philosophy: Origins of the Discussion (1890s – 1930s)","authors":"G. V. Biserov","doi":"10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-167-180","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-167-180","url":null,"abstract":"The paper examines the early discussion on the role of Heraclitus in Nietzsche’s philosophy, including some relatively little-known contributions by R. Oehler, E. Bertram and A. Baeumler, as well as more widely mentioned interpretations of K. Jaspers, M. Heidegger and K. Löwith. I show that in the 1890s–1930s the significant influence of Heraclitus on Nietzsche’s thought was considered indisputable. However, interpretations of the period can be divided into the ‘authentic’ ones (e.g., Oehler, Löwith), each of which view Nietzsche’s use of Heraclitus thought as significant for Nietzsche’s own philosophy, and ‘idiosyncratic’ ones (e.g. Heidegger, Jaspers), which, by interpreting Nietzsche from their own idiosyncratic perspectives, naturally put less philosophical weight on reading Nietzsche from the standpoint of Heraclitus. This review leads to the conclusion that a study of Nietzsche’s Heraclitus can contribute to two contemporary debates in Nietzsche studies: the discussion on Nietzsche’s ontological position and to the discussion around the so-called continuity thesis.","PeriodicalId":240316,"journal":{"name":"Siberian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134641676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-17DOI: 10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-79-91
O. K. Trubitsyn
Wallerstein states that the only social revolution, or the «great turning point» of Modern Times, is the formation of the European capitalist world–economy during the «long» XVI century. Contrary to this, the author argues that two more great fractures can be distinguished in the history of Modern Times. The first of them was the industrial revolution of the XIX century, when three processes coincided, provoked by the invention of the steam engine – the mechanization of factory production, the energy revolution and the change of logistics. The emergence of globalization required a combination of several circumstances that developed into a single complex at the end of the twentieth century: the absorption of the remaining large external zones by the capitalist world system, the information and communication revolution, the establishment of geopolitical unipolarism, the dominance of the ideology of neoliberal globalism on a global scale.
{"title":"The Controversy with Immanuel Wallerstein: the Industrial Revolution and Globalization as the Great Turning Points of Modern Times","authors":"O. K. Trubitsyn","doi":"10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-79-91","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-79-91","url":null,"abstract":"Wallerstein states that the only social revolution, or the «great turning point» of Modern Times, is the formation of the European capitalist world–economy during the «long» XVI century. Contrary to this, the author argues that two more great fractures can be distinguished in the history of Modern Times. The first of them was the industrial revolution of the XIX century, when three processes coincided, provoked by the invention of the steam engine – the mechanization of factory production, the energy revolution and the change of logistics. The emergence of globalization required a combination of several circumstances that developed into a single complex at the end of the twentieth century: the absorption of the remaining large external zones by the capitalist world system, the information and communication revolution, the establishment of geopolitical unipolarism, the dominance of the ideology of neoliberal globalism on a global scale.","PeriodicalId":240316,"journal":{"name":"Siberian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127476484","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-16DOI: 10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-43-56
G. V. Karpov
The article shows how, by changing the formulations of habitual premises and critical questions for presumptive argumentation schemes, one can evaluate an argument even before its type has become known. The argument from position to know is used to justify the possibility of detecting types of classical presumptive schemes when we take into account the type of speech act used to implement them, and the speaker and listener’s awareness of each other’s propositional attitudes. The types of argument from position to know are distinguished with respect to their epistemic and illocutionary variety. Following Austin one of these types can be considered a performative argument from position to know. The article describes the principles of its usage and outlines the evaluation procedure.
{"title":"Argument From Position to Know: The Problem of Identification and Evaluation","authors":"G. V. Karpov","doi":"10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-43-56","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-43-56","url":null,"abstract":"The article shows how, by changing the formulations of habitual premises and critical questions for presumptive argumentation schemes, one can evaluate an argument even before its type has become known. The argument from position to know is used to justify the possibility of detecting types of classical presumptive schemes when we take into account the type of speech act used to implement them, and the speaker and listener’s awareness of each other’s propositional attitudes. The types of argument from position to know are distinguished with respect to their epistemic and illocutionary variety. Following Austin one of these types can be considered a performative argument from position to know. The article describes the principles of its usage and outlines the evaluation procedure.","PeriodicalId":240316,"journal":{"name":"Siberian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133675159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-16DOI: 10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-68-78
E. A. Rozhdestvenskaya
The article reveals the substantive aspects of the Foresight methodology of social forecasting of the development of the education system as a complex, dynamic, open system from the point of view of a systematic approach. It is assumed that the education system is a central social institution, which, being associated with the transmission of knowledge, has to, in order to form a holistic personality of human beings, also support its own systemic complexity, as well as correspond to the complexity of the entire structure of society. The paper emphasizes some substantive difficulties in the work of experts in the framework of Foresight studies, as well as the need to take into account the value aspect when predicting the education of the future.
{"title":"Education as a System: The Content of the Foresight Methodology","authors":"E. A. Rozhdestvenskaya","doi":"10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-68-78","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-68-78","url":null,"abstract":"The article reveals the substantive aspects of the Foresight methodology of social forecasting of the development of the education system as a complex, dynamic, open system from the point of view of a systematic approach. It is assumed that the education system is a central social institution, which, being associated with the transmission of knowledge, has to, in order to form a holistic personality of human beings, also support its own systemic complexity, as well as correspond to the complexity of the entire structure of society. The paper emphasizes some substantive difficulties in the work of experts in the framework of Foresight studies, as well as the need to take into account the value aspect when predicting the education of the future.","PeriodicalId":240316,"journal":{"name":"Siberian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"146 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132200997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-16DOI: 10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-57-67
G. Sorina, P. N. Gurov
The exclusion of Russia from the Bologna process creates serious challenges for the higher education system. The beginning reform will affect the whole institution of higher learning of our country. This, in turn, opens up new opportunities to improve the efficiency of the entire system. The introduction of three basic elements, namely: a bank of pedagogical ideas, a triple helix model and a system for introducing creative technologies into the educational process, can allow us to form a qualitatively new level of training of specialists in the country.
{"title":"Excluding Russia from the Bologna Process: What is Behind This?","authors":"G. Sorina, P. N. Gurov","doi":"10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-57-67","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-57-67","url":null,"abstract":"The exclusion of Russia from the Bologna process creates serious challenges for the higher education system. The beginning reform will affect the whole institution of higher learning of our country. This, in turn, opens up new opportunities to improve the efficiency of the entire system. The introduction of three basic elements, namely: a bank of pedagogical ideas, a triple helix model and a system for introducing creative technologies into the educational process, can allow us to form a qualitatively new level of training of specialists in the country.","PeriodicalId":240316,"journal":{"name":"Siberian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126816237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-15DOI: 10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-5-9
A. Gungov
Throughout his work M. Heidegger develops the theme of authentic logic contrasting it with the prevailing understanding of the character, essence and goals of academic logic. He pays special attention to the ontological justification of logic, the derivative nature of the truth, the subject-predicate structure of judgement, copula and derivation rules. He also focuses on the status of logical negation and the language ofsymbolic logic. M. Heidegger examines in detail the justificatory role of the law of identity, the relations of difference and the law of sufficient reason, and not just as logical principles but fundamental statements of logic. The conclusion of this paper is the understanding that M. Heidegger’s doctrine of authentic logic is a challenge to academic logic and a decisive step towards philosophical logic in the tradition of continental philosophy.
{"title":"Heidegger on Authentic and Academic Logic","authors":"A. Gungov","doi":"10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-5-9","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-5-9","url":null,"abstract":"Throughout his work M. Heidegger develops the theme of authentic logic contrasting it with the prevailing understanding of the character, essence and goals of academic logic. He pays special attention to the ontological justification of logic, the derivative nature of the truth, the subject-predicate structure of judgement, copula and derivation rules. He also focuses on the status of logical negation and the language ofsymbolic logic. M. Heidegger examines in detail the justificatory role of the law of identity, the relations of difference and the law of sufficient reason, and not just as logical principles but fundamental statements of logic. The conclusion of this paper is the understanding that M. Heidegger’s doctrine of authentic logic is a challenge to academic logic and a decisive step towards philosophical logic in the tradition of continental philosophy.","PeriodicalId":240316,"journal":{"name":"Siberian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129962800","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-15DOI: 10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-19-42
N. Golovko
The paper aims to answer the question: «How does an electron exist at the beginning of the 21st century?» from the point of view of the general logic of the philosophy of science discourse, taking into account contemporary philosophical concepts that explain what an «electron» is, and in what sense we could talk about the «existence» of such objects in the first quarter of the 21st century. A good concept of the existence of an object postulated by a successful scientific theory should at least take into account two contexts of proper philosophical reasoning – reasoning «from science», grasping the questions of the philosophical and methodological justification of knowledge at the level of certain «standards of rationality» that correspond to the chosen theory, and reasoning «from metaphysics», which, in the appropriate context, interpret «electron» as an element of objective reality, as if the electron of scientists «actually» existed. Our thesis is that by choosing as the main elements of the concept the Dennettian ontology of patterns project and the E.J. Lowe’s neo-Aristotelian categorical ontology project, we will be able to block the problem of pessimistic meta-induction (H. Putnam, L. Laudan, etc.). The electron exists as a pattern that we extract from the whole set of empirical data associated with the theoretical entity «electron», whose «real definition» right now is given by the Standard Model and the accompanying concepts from quantum mechanics. In the course of the scientific revolution, the electron, as a pattern, does not disappear anywhere, since parts of the «real definitions» of the patterns of the old «paradigm», those that can be retrospectively interpreted and functionally meaningfully coupled with the new one, will be asserted within the «real definitions» of the new patterns, which indicates on the existence of a relationship of «essential dependence» between the «old» and the «new» patterns.
这篇论文旨在回答这样一个问题:“在21世纪初，电子是如何存在的?”从科学哲学话语的一般逻辑的角度出发，考虑到解释什么是“电子”的当代哲学概念，以及在什么意义上我们可以在21世纪的前25年谈论这些对象的“存在”。一个成功的科学理论所假定的对象存在的好概念至少应该考虑到适当的哲学推理的两种背景——“从科学”推理，在与所选择的理论相对应的某些“理性标准”的水平上把握知识的哲学和方法论证明问题，以及“从形而上学”推理，在适当的背景下，将“电子-电子”解释为客观现实的一个元素，就好像科学家的电子“实际上”存在一样。我们的论点是，通过选择丹尼斯的模式本体论计划和E.J.洛的新亚里士多德的直言本体论计划作为概念的主要元素，我们将能够阻止悲观的元归纳问题(H. Putnam, L. Laudan等)。电子作为一种模式存在，我们从与理论实体“电子”相关的一整套经验数据中提取出来，其“真实定义”目前由标准模型和量子力学的相关概念给出。在科学革命的过程中，电子作为一种模式，并没有消失在任何地方，因为旧“范式”模式的“真实定义”的一部分，那些可以回顾性地解释和功能上有意义地与新模式相结合的模式，将在新模式的“真实定义”中得到断言，这表明“旧”和“新”模式之间存在一种“本质依赖”关系。
{"title":"J. Ladyman, D. Dennett and E.J. Lowe: How the electron exists","authors":"N. Golovko","doi":"10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-19-42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-19-42","url":null,"abstract":"The paper aims to answer the question: «How does an electron exist at the beginning of the 21st century?» from the point of view of the general logic of the philosophy of science discourse, taking into account contemporary philosophical concepts that explain what an «electron» is, and in what sense we could talk about the «existence» of such objects in the first quarter of the 21st century. A good concept of the existence of an object postulated by a successful scientific theory should at least take into account two contexts of proper philosophical reasoning – reasoning «from science», grasping the questions of the philosophical and methodological justification of knowledge at the level of certain «standards of rationality» that correspond to the chosen theory, and reasoning «from metaphysics», which, in the appropriate context, interpret «electron» as an element of objective reality, as if the electron of scientists «actually» existed. Our thesis is that by choosing as the main elements of the concept the Dennettian ontology of patterns project and the E.J. Lowe’s neo-Aristotelian categorical ontology project, we will be able to block the problem of pessimistic meta-induction (H. Putnam, L. Laudan, etc.). The electron exists as a pattern that we extract from the whole set of empirical data associated with the theoretical entity «electron», whose «real definition» right now is given by the Standard Model and the accompanying concepts from quantum mechanics. In the course of the scientific revolution, the electron, as a pattern, does not disappear anywhere, since parts of the «real definitions» of the patterns of the old «paradigm», those that can be retrospectively interpreted and functionally meaningfully coupled with the new one, will be asserted within the «real definitions» of the new patterns, which indicates on the existence of a relationship of «essential dependence» between the «old» and the «new» patterns.","PeriodicalId":240316,"journal":{"name":"Siberian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115992466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-11-15DOI: 10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-10-18
A. Shevchenko
The paper analyzes the main social contexts constituting social epistemology. It describes external socio-political contexts which define the framework and required procedures for open research, scientific consensus and epistemic justice. However, the article argues for special importance of internal social contexts – those of knowledge production in research groups. The treatment of knowledge as a collective enterprise requires, in turn, discussion of a new set of problems: the ways and mechanisms of creating the collective subject of knowledge, ways of overcoming disagreements between individual researchers and research teams, explanation of scientific change and others. The «social turn» in epistemology calls for a careful study of these two types of interacting contexts – external and internal ones.
{"title":"«Social» in Social Epistemology","authors":"A. Shevchenko","doi":"10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-10-18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-10-18","url":null,"abstract":"The paper analyzes the main social contexts constituting social epistemology. It describes external socio-political contexts which define the framework and required procedures for open research, scientific consensus and epistemic justice. However, the article argues for special importance of internal social contexts – those of knowledge production in research groups. The treatment of knowledge as a collective enterprise requires, in turn, discussion of a new set of problems: the ways and mechanisms of creating the collective subject of knowledge, ways of overcoming disagreements between individual researchers and research teams, explanation of scientific change and others. The «social turn» in epistemology calls for a careful study of these two types of interacting contexts – external and internal ones.","PeriodicalId":240316,"journal":{"name":"Siberian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121106898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-10DOI: 10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-1-76-98
I. E. Pris
{"title":"Physics and Philosophy Interview with Thomas Schiicker","authors":"I. E. Pris","doi":"10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-1-76-98","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-1-76-98","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":240316,"journal":{"name":"Siberian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130734548","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-10DOI: 10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-1-52-62
E. S. Smyshlyaeva
The article suggests that the origins of some of Leontiev’s philosophical ideas should be sought in the philosophy of A. Schopenhauer. It reveals the origin of Leontiev’s “despotic idea” and, at the same time, the meaning of the term despotism, the mention of which in Leontiev’s texts used to confuse his contemporaries. The article clarifies the place of despotic idea in Leontiev’s conceptual system, its role in his theory of organic development, in his doctrine of cultural distinctness and in the philosopher’s description of his social and political ideal. An original development of Schopenhauer’s ideas in Nietzsche’s philosophy is demonstrated. The loss of the metaphysical foundation leads to the fact that it is not the idea that becomes despotic, but the personality, whose highest embodiment the philosopher called the overman.
{"title":"Despotic Idea and Despotic Personality: Two Variants of Despotism in the Philosophy of К. Leontiev and F. Nietzsche","authors":"E. S. Smyshlyaeva","doi":"10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-1-52-62","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-1-52-62","url":null,"abstract":"The article suggests that the origins of some of Leontiev’s philosophical ideas should be sought in the philosophy of A. Schopenhauer. It reveals the origin of Leontiev’s “despotic idea” and, at the same time, the meaning of the term despotism, the mention of which in Leontiev’s texts used to confuse his contemporaries. The article clarifies the place of despotic idea in Leontiev’s conceptual system, its role in his theory of organic development, in his doctrine of cultural distinctness and in the philosopher’s description of his social and political ideal. An original development of Schopenhauer’s ideas in Nietzsche’s philosophy is demonstrated. The loss of the metaphysical foundation leads to the fact that it is not the idea that becomes despotic, but the personality, whose highest embodiment the philosopher called the overman.","PeriodicalId":240316,"journal":{"name":"Siberian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"1970 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128039903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：