Pub Date : 2020-09-02DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2020.1863719
V. S. Bibler
ABSTRACT In this excerpt, Vladimir S. Bibler attempts to demonstrate how the initial concepts of Newtonian mechanics are fraught with contradictions. The first is related to the law of inertia, which states that a body will resist change by an external influence; this means that the body is endowed with its own active force and that, being self-sufficient, it does not enter into external relations with other bodies. Location (space), however, is also part of these relations. If there are no relations, then space does not exist in Newtonian mechanics. Kant therefore suggests a different world that would possess a different space and many geometries. Bibler argues that Kant’s work approaches the basic principles of future Einsteinian physics, where space is a phenomenon of gravity. Developing this argument, Bibler concludes that Einstein’s mechanics seem to bring Newtonian mechanics to their logical culmination.
在这篇节选中，Vladimir S. Bibler试图证明牛顿力学的最初概念是如何充满矛盾的。第一个与惯性定律有关，该定律指出，物体会抵抗外部影响的变化;这就是说，身体被赋予了自己的积极力量，它是自给自足的，不与其他身体发生外部关系。然而，位置(空间)也是这些关系的一部分。如果没有关系，那么空间在牛顿力学中就不存在。因此，康德提出了一个不同的世界，它将拥有不同的空间和许多几何形状。比布勒认为，康德的工作接近未来爱因斯坦物理学的基本原理，在爱因斯坦物理学中，空间是一种引力现象。Bibler进一步阐述了这一论点，他得出结论，爱因斯坦的力学似乎把牛顿力学带到了逻辑的顶点。
{"title":"Kant Peers into the Mid-Twentieth Century—Kant Peers into the Seventeenth Century","authors":"V. S. Bibler","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1863719","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863719","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this excerpt, Vladimir S. Bibler attempts to demonstrate how the initial concepts of Newtonian mechanics are fraught with contradictions. The first is related to the law of inertia, which states that a body will resist change by an external influence; this means that the body is endowed with its own active force and that, being self-sufficient, it does not enter into external relations with other bodies. Location (space), however, is also part of these relations. If there are no relations, then space does not exist in Newtonian mechanics. Kant therefore suggests a different world that would possess a different space and many geometries. Bibler argues that Kant’s work approaches the basic principles of future Einsteinian physics, where space is a phenomenon of gravity. Developing this argument, Bibler concludes that Einstein’s mechanics seem to bring Newtonian mechanics to their logical culmination.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"323 - 337"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863719","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41423584","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-02DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2020.1863729
V. S. Bibler
ABSTRACT In this section, Bibler once again explicates the meaning of the term “culture.” He first defines it as a form of simultaneous being and communication among people of different cultures and eras. The second definition he gives is that culture is a form of self-determination in the horizon of personhood, the self-determination of life, knowledge, and thought. The third is that culture is the world “for the first time.” Culture allows us, author and reader, viewer, and audience, an ability as if to recreate the world of objects—on the surface of a picture or the pages of a literary work—and this world is, at the same time, perceived in its absolute objectivity, in its independence from me. A work of culture is not destroyed or consumed but retains its significance for centuries. The world and objects begin to be understood as if they were works of art. Bibler also considers the style of communicating among people at each of the thresholds of culture. He emphasizes that the author always addresses his work. In this section, he also gives a brief description of the modes of thought of antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the modern era. He characterizes communication among cultures as one of the facets of the idea of a dialogue of logics.
{"title":"The Concept of Culture. Culture as a Communication of Cultures. The World for the First Time","authors":"V. S. Bibler","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1863729","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863729","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this section, Bibler once again explicates the meaning of the term “culture.” He first defines it as a form of simultaneous being and communication among people of different cultures and eras. The second definition he gives is that culture is a form of self-determination in the horizon of personhood, the self-determination of life, knowledge, and thought. The third is that culture is the world “for the first time.” Culture allows us, author and reader, viewer, and audience, an ability as if to recreate the world of objects—on the surface of a picture or the pages of a literary work—and this world is, at the same time, perceived in its absolute objectivity, in its independence from me. A work of culture is not destroyed or consumed but retains its significance for centuries. The world and objects begin to be understood as if they were works of art. Bibler also considers the style of communicating among people at each of the thresholds of culture. He emphasizes that the author always addresses his work. In this section, he also gives a brief description of the modes of thought of antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the modern era. He characterizes communication among cultures as one of the facets of the idea of a dialogue of logics.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"23 1","pages":"378 - 386"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863729","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59601367","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-02DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2020.1863718
T. Dlugach
ABSTRACT This article discusses a new conception of logic developed by the well-known Russian philosopher Vladimir Solomonovich Bibler. Analyzing prior methods of thinking and previous types of logics, he came to the conclusion that they were historically determined and that modern European logic was oriented toward science (which was at the center of culture in the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries) and represented a doctrine of science. This modern logic reached its supreme form in the logic of Hegel, who brilliantly presented the entire path of the cognizing mind but also considered it the sole form of comprehension. Hegel’s enormous influence found its manifestation in the treatment of all previous logics, from ancient to the medieval, viewed as preparatory stages of Hegelian logic. However, Bibler saw the limitations of Hegel’s approach to logic in the very fact that its starting point was not justified in the logic itself but accepted without reflection, just as Newton, the founder of modern European science, had abandoned consideration of the starting point of mechanics, force, analyzing only its appearances. As a result, Hegel’s logic seemed absolutely complete, requiring no further development. Bibler believes that each logic must justify its starting point extra-logically: Modern science ends up in a paradox, particularly in the logic of justifying set theory. Bibler thinks that being enters into logic in the form of another logic. Bringing the findings of Mikhail Bakhtin, who discovered the dialogical character of culture, into his own conception of logic, Bibler argues that his new logic should be dia-logic, the logic of a dialogue, rather than a mono-logic like Hegel’s. It needs to focus not on science but on culture; it could therefore be called a logic of culture and will examine understanding rather than cognition.
{"title":"Vladimir S. Bibler: A Remarkable Russian Philosopher","authors":"T. Dlugach","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1863718","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863718","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article discusses a new conception of logic developed by the well-known Russian philosopher Vladimir Solomonovich Bibler. Analyzing prior methods of thinking and previous types of logics, he came to the conclusion that they were historically determined and that modern European logic was oriented toward science (which was at the center of culture in the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries) and represented a doctrine of science. This modern logic reached its supreme form in the logic of Hegel, who brilliantly presented the entire path of the cognizing mind but also considered it the sole form of comprehension. Hegel’s enormous influence found its manifestation in the treatment of all previous logics, from ancient to the medieval, viewed as preparatory stages of Hegelian logic. However, Bibler saw the limitations of Hegel’s approach to logic in the very fact that its starting point was not justified in the logic itself but accepted without reflection, just as Newton, the founder of modern European science, had abandoned consideration of the starting point of mechanics, force, analyzing only its appearances. As a result, Hegel’s logic seemed absolutely complete, requiring no further development. Bibler believes that each logic must justify its starting point extra-logically: Modern science ends up in a paradox, particularly in the logic of justifying set theory. Bibler thinks that being enters into logic in the form of another logic. Bringing the findings of Mikhail Bakhtin, who discovered the dialogical character of culture, into his own conception of logic, Bibler argues that his new logic should be dia-logic, the logic of a dialogue, rather than a mono-logic like Hegel’s. It needs to focus not on science but on culture; it could therefore be called a logic of culture and will examine understanding rather than cognition.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"311 - 322"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863718","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46469308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-02DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2020.1863722
V. S. Bibler
ABSTRACT Modern logical concepts—essences, phenomena, causality, and so forth—border on medieval concepts, including the concept of man’s and, ultimately, God’s involvement in real objects. According to Bibler, every logic is dia-logic (two or more logics), but this is only realized in the late twentieth century thanks to, among others, the works of Mikhail Bakhtin, which demonstrated the dialogic nature of artworks and their non-sublatability in culture. The works of Sophocles do not lose their significance in Shakespeare’s time, nor do Shakespeare’s during Tolstoy’s time: Their characters live forever, and their ideas are reproduced in debate/dialogue with other characters’ ideas. Bibler similarly postulated the formation of a new logic as a logic of culture that differed from the Hegelian mono-logical logic of science. Here, Bibler defines modern-era logic as science oriented—that is, as a doctrine of science—and he describes the need for transforming it into a logic of culture, providing a definition of paradox where the complete unfolding of a situation leads to its own destruction.
{"title":"From the “Doctrine of Science”1 to the Logic of Culture","authors":"V. S. Bibler","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1863722","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863722","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Modern logical concepts—essences, phenomena, causality, and so forth—border on medieval concepts, including the concept of man’s and, ultimately, God’s involvement in real objects. According to Bibler, every logic is dia-logic (two or more logics), but this is only realized in the late twentieth century thanks to, among others, the works of Mikhail Bakhtin, which demonstrated the dialogic nature of artworks and their non-sublatability in culture. The works of Sophocles do not lose their significance in Shakespeare’s time, nor do Shakespeare’s during Tolstoy’s time: Their characters live forever, and their ideas are reproduced in debate/dialogue with other characters’ ideas. Bibler similarly postulated the formation of a new logic as a logic of culture that differed from the Hegelian mono-logical logic of science. Here, Bibler defines modern-era logic as science oriented—that is, as a doctrine of science—and he describes the need for transforming it into a logic of culture, providing a definition of paradox where the complete unfolding of a situation leads to its own destruction.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"346 - 354"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863722","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47975888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-02DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2020.1863730
V. S. Bibler
ABSTRACT In this section, Bibler discusses the minutia of logic, specifically the development and maturation of logic as well as the self-justification of logic. Bibler points out that, in the science of logic, there is a problem of beginning and its justification. This problem was rightly identified by Hegel, but Hegel’s logic falls short in regard to logical justification. The paradoxical self-justification is, in Bibler’s view, the weak point of Hegel’s system and is subsequently also what we find in Marx’s Capital. What we need is a logic that can justify itself, a real logic, and not just Hegel’s “semi-logic.” Only this (real) logic is able to explain the process of transition from the old theory to the new one—the process by which new theories are developed.
{"title":"Logic Must Justify Its Own Beginning: It Must Become “Dia-logic”","authors":"V. S. Bibler","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1863730","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863730","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this section, Bibler discusses the minutia of logic, specifically the development and maturation of logic as well as the self-justification of logic. Bibler points out that, in the science of logic, there is a problem of beginning and its justification. This problem was rightly identified by Hegel, but Hegel’s logic falls short in regard to logical justification. The paradoxical self-justification is, in Bibler’s view, the weak point of Hegel’s system and is subsequently also what we find in Marx’s Capital. What we need is a logic that can justify itself, a real logic, and not just Hegel’s “semi-logic.” Only this (real) logic is able to explain the process of transition from the old theory to the new one—the process by which new theories are developed.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"387 - 395"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863730","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44954185","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-02DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2020.1863720
V. S. Bibler
ABSTRACT In this excerpt, Vladimir S. Bibler attempts to show that the initial concepts of mechanics that were formulated in the 1660s are paradoxical; they result in contradictory concepts. However, this paradox was revealed only in the late twentieth century. When concepts turn to themselves in self-justification, paradoxes arise, as in the paradox of set theory. According to Bibler, the reason for this is the paradoxical nature of any theoretical system’s “beginnings,” because they border on preexisting and future “beginnings.” Bibler discusses the revealing of paradoxes in correlating the principles of Galileo and Kant, in the fact that Kant comprehended Galileo’s formulation of a new understanding of motion as inertial motion, which concealed contradictory determinations. He provides a definition of paradox in which a deduction completely refutes its own premises.
{"title":"The Idea of Paradox in Initial Definition","authors":"V. S. Bibler","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1863720","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863720","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this excerpt, Vladimir S. Bibler attempts to show that the initial concepts of mechanics that were formulated in the 1660s are paradoxical; they result in contradictory concepts. However, this paradox was revealed only in the late twentieth century. When concepts turn to themselves in self-justification, paradoxes arise, as in the paradox of set theory. According to Bibler, the reason for this is the paradoxical nature of any theoretical system’s “beginnings,” because they border on preexisting and future “beginnings.” Bibler discusses the revealing of paradoxes in correlating the principles of Galileo and Kant, in the fact that Kant comprehended Galileo’s formulation of a new understanding of motion as inertial motion, which concealed contradictory determinations. He provides a definition of paradox in which a deduction completely refutes its own premises.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"338 - 342"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863720","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48355446","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-02DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2020.1863721
V. S. Bibler
ABSTRACT Here Bibler argues that the “beginning” of logic must be understood as a conjunction of the logical and extra-logical. This is in fact the justification of the logic of being, which means the conjoining of two logics, because being enters into logic as another logic; that is, as a different type of reasoning.
{"title":"A Critical Conjunction","authors":"V. S. Bibler","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1863721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863721","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Here Bibler argues that the “beginning” of logic must be understood as a conjunction of the logical and extra-logical. This is in fact the justification of the logic of being, which means the conjoining of two logics, because being enters into logic as another logic; that is, as a different type of reasoning.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"343 - 345"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863721","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44587225","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-09-02DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2020.1863732
V. S. Bibler
ABSTRACT This section reproduces the part of Bibler’s book Thinking as Creative Work (1975) that discusses the subject as a “microsocium” combining the rational intellect, reason, intelligence, and intuition. All of these were contained in and disappeared into thinking but were logically sensed as a combination of different logics. The philosopher’s task in relation to the human intellect was to realize and reproduce the interaction of these abilities into a unified action. Later in the book From the Doctrine of Science to the Logic of Culture (1991), Bibler analyzed Nicholas of Cusa’s logic in detail, where the intellect reconstructs all other cognitive abilities and endows them with historically inimitable content. Nicholas of Cusa calls logic a purely rational movement for freeing the power of the mind for properly logical transformations, ultimately linking the mind with ignorance. Later this section discusses the features of ancient, Renaissance, and early modern-era thought by turning to Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza, in whose works the logical acquired a psychological justification. It was replaced by the logic of science, an analysis of which leads to the conviction that the advent of a new logic of culture is needed. Bibler shows that the logical intent of the Modern Philosophy was to order all of the previous logics into a continuous chain, which was justified by the very method of constructing scientific knowledge; logic thus became epistemology. Hegel was able to destroy all of the diversity of human abilities, incredibly expanding rational mind by introducing all of the definitions of cognition into it, but in the end it burst, revealing its truth as the truth of a holistic, dialectical reason. The development of a logic of structure, a logic of text, was a necessary process, but now we are addressing the ability to logically reproduce the predefinition of future logical systems. Now the logical development of the logic of text (formal logic) allows us to return to the potencies of philosophical logic of the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries and its radical transformation. This was outlined by Marx in his early writings and in his preparatory work for Capital. It became necessary and possible to master the internal logical dialogue developed by the modern era’s thought and to express it in the new logic, the logic of culture.
本节复制了Bibler的书《Thinking as Creative Work》(1975)中的部分内容，该部分讨论了将理性智力、理性、智力和直觉结合在一起的“微社会”主题。所有这些都包含在思维中，又消失在思维中，但在逻辑上被感觉为不同逻辑的组合。哲学家对于人类智力的任务是实现并再现这些能力的相互作用，使之成为统一的行动。后来，比布勒在1991年出版的《从科学学说到文化逻辑》一书中详细分析了尼古拉斯·库萨的逻辑，其中智力重构了所有其他认知能力，并赋予它们历史上不可模仿的内容。库萨的尼古拉斯称逻辑是一种纯粹的理性运动，它释放了思想的力量，进行适当的逻辑转换，最终将思想与无知联系起来。稍后，本节将通过笛卡尔、莱布尼茨和斯宾诺莎来讨论古代、文艺复兴和早期现代思想的特点，在他们的作品中，逻辑获得了心理学上的正当性。它被科学逻辑所取代，对科学逻辑的分析使我们确信，需要一种新的文化逻辑的出现。比伯勒指出，现代哲学的逻辑意图是要把以前的一切逻辑排列成一条连续的链条，而这正是构造科学知识的方法所证明的;于是逻辑学变成了认识论。黑格尔能够摧毁人类能力的多样性，通过引入认知的所有定义，令人难以置信地扩展理性思维，但最终它爆发了，揭示了它作为整体辩证理性的真理。结构逻辑、文本逻辑的发展是一个必要的过程，但现在我们要解决的是逻辑上再现未来逻辑系统的预定义的能力。现在，文本逻辑(形式逻辑)的逻辑发展使我们能够回到17到19世纪哲学逻辑的力量及其根本性的转变。马克思在他的早期著作和《资本论》的准备工作中概述了这一点。掌握现代思想发展起来的内在逻辑对话，用新的逻辑——文化逻辑来表达，就变得必要和可能。
{"title":"A “Return” to the Traditions of Philosophical Logic (Sixteenth to Early Nineteenth Centuries): A Return or a Transformation?","authors":"V. S. Bibler","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1863732","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863732","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This section reproduces the part of Bibler’s book Thinking as Creative Work (1975) that discusses the subject as a “microsocium” combining the rational intellect, reason, intelligence, and intuition. All of these were contained in and disappeared into thinking but were logically sensed as a combination of different logics. The philosopher’s task in relation to the human intellect was to realize and reproduce the interaction of these abilities into a unified action. Later in the book From the Doctrine of Science to the Logic of Culture (1991), Bibler analyzed Nicholas of Cusa’s logic in detail, where the intellect reconstructs all other cognitive abilities and endows them with historically inimitable content. Nicholas of Cusa calls logic a purely rational movement for freeing the power of the mind for properly logical transformations, ultimately linking the mind with ignorance. Later this section discusses the features of ancient, Renaissance, and early modern-era thought by turning to Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza, in whose works the logical acquired a psychological justification. It was replaced by the logic of science, an analysis of which leads to the conviction that the advent of a new logic of culture is needed. Bibler shows that the logical intent of the Modern Philosophy was to order all of the previous logics into a continuous chain, which was justified by the very method of constructing scientific knowledge; logic thus became epistemology. Hegel was able to destroy all of the diversity of human abilities, incredibly expanding rational mind by introducing all of the definitions of cognition into it, but in the end it burst, revealing its truth as the truth of a holistic, dialectical reason. The development of a logic of structure, a logic of text, was a necessary process, but now we are addressing the ability to logically reproduce the predefinition of future logical systems. Now the logical development of the logic of text (formal logic) allows us to return to the potencies of philosophical logic of the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries and its radical transformation. This was outlined by Marx in his early writings and in his preparatory work for Capital. It became necessary and possible to master the internal logical dialogue developed by the modern era’s thought and to express it in the new logic, the logic of culture.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"419 - 437"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863732","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42325466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-03DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2020.1847941
V. Kantor
ABSTRACT In this article, the author examines the work of Boris Pasternak, primarily his novel Doctor Zhivago, in the context of his Marburg experience and Kantian ideas as the basis of his moral-aesthetic position. Pasternak tried to live and write over the barriers that a totalitarian era had erected in human life. His late novel managed to tell Russia and the rest of humanity about this tragic century in Russian history, using as the basis of his reflections a Russian intellectual who grew up on the pathos of a Christianity rethought in early twentieth-century Russia. What happened in Russia in 1917 was not only a social pogrom, but also an intellectual one. Pasternak’s novel was a unique attempt to cope with this intellectual catastrophe by relying on Christianity. The very name of the protagonist, Zhivago, has a rhyme in the Gospels. It was not by chance that Pasternak shared with the Christian thinker Fyodor Stepun that he had written about Doctor Zhivago while working on a translation of Goethe’s Faust, that great mystery-drama. He recounted Russia’s historical tragedy through the fate of a single man, a doctor and poet. Pasternak won the battle against the darkness that had engulfed his homeland, preserving a soul capable of grieving for loved ones despite restrictive barriers, for the starry heavens above and the moral law within made the core of his personhood.
{"title":"The Celestial’s Position, or Over Barriers. Boris Pasternak and Fyodor Stepun","authors":"V. Kantor","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1847941","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1847941","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this article, the author examines the work of Boris Pasternak, primarily his novel Doctor Zhivago, in the context of his Marburg experience and Kantian ideas as the basis of his moral-aesthetic position. Pasternak tried to live and write over the barriers that a totalitarian era had erected in human life. His late novel managed to tell Russia and the rest of humanity about this tragic century in Russian history, using as the basis of his reflections a Russian intellectual who grew up on the pathos of a Christianity rethought in early twentieth-century Russia. What happened in Russia in 1917 was not only a social pogrom, but also an intellectual one. Pasternak’s novel was a unique attempt to cope with this intellectual catastrophe by relying on Christianity. The very name of the protagonist, Zhivago, has a rhyme in the Gospels. It was not by chance that Pasternak shared with the Christian thinker Fyodor Stepun that he had written about Doctor Zhivago while working on a translation of Goethe’s Faust, that great mystery-drama. He recounted Russia’s historical tragedy through the fate of a single man, a doctor and poet. Pasternak won the battle against the darkness that had engulfed his homeland, preserving a soul capable of grieving for loved ones despite restrictive barriers, for the starry heavens above and the moral law within made the core of his personhood.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"268 - 278"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1847941","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42340216","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-07-03DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2020.1847923
N. Dmitrieva
ABSTRACT A unique feature of Pasternak’s reception and interpretation of Cohen’s philosophical ideas consists in the fact that the poet focused mainly on the conception of ethics posed by the head of the Marburg neo-Kantian school and his conception of a history based on ethical principles. This article offers a comparative analysis of the three-stage development of Cohen’s conception of human being alongside Pasternak’s development of the image of his young female character in the tale “Liuvers’s Childhood.” It shows how Cohen’s intersubjective model of self-consciousness finds its embodiment in the transformations of Zhenya Liuvers’s self-consciousness resulting from the appearance of a “stranger,” or “Other,” in her life. The article also analyzes Cohen’s conception of history in relation to ethically understood human being and shows how Cohen’s specialized approach to understanding time, the future as a moment in time, and the ideal is reflected in Pasternak’s conception of history and its interpretation from a Christian perspective in Doctor Zhivago. In addition to these literary works, the author also uses certain autobiographical and publicistic texts, as well as correspondence, to examine Pasternak’s reception of Cohen’s ethical ideas.
{"title":"Hermann Cohen’s Ethical Ideas in the Works of Boris Pasternak","authors":"N. Dmitrieva","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1847923","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1847923","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A unique feature of Pasternak’s reception and interpretation of Cohen’s philosophical ideas consists in the fact that the poet focused mainly on the conception of ethics posed by the head of the Marburg neo-Kantian school and his conception of a history based on ethical principles. This article offers a comparative analysis of the three-stage development of Cohen’s conception of human being alongside Pasternak’s development of the image of his young female character in the tale “Liuvers’s Childhood.” It shows how Cohen’s intersubjective model of self-consciousness finds its embodiment in the transformations of Zhenya Liuvers’s self-consciousness resulting from the appearance of a “stranger,” or “Other,” in her life. The article also analyzes Cohen’s conception of history in relation to ethically understood human being and shows how Cohen’s specialized approach to understanding time, the future as a moment in time, and the ideal is reflected in Pasternak’s conception of history and its interpretation from a Christian perspective in Doctor Zhivago. In addition to these literary works, the author also uses certain autobiographical and publicistic texts, as well as correspondence, to examine Pasternak’s reception of Cohen’s ethical ideas.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"279 - 291"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1847923","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41605530","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","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：