Pub Date : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2022.2033048
M. Bykova
Heidegger is one of the most original and important thinkers in the history of Western philosophy, but his philosophical project is difficult to grasp and appreciate. Formulating his quest as the revival of the question of Being that he believes has been ignored since the time of Aristotle, he brings to the fore the fundamental significance of ontology. Yet he remains critical of traditional ontological inquiry. In particular, he opposes Cartesian ontology, i.e., ontology of “thingness” that answers the question of Being in terms of beings, and in doing so conceals the truth of Being. Heidegger demonstrates that while ontological issues played a certain role in the history of philosophy, all previous philosophy was concerned with beings or things in their being. However, Being is not a thing, but that which “transcends” things, “the transcendens pure and simple.” This “transcendens” could be open only through the authentic experience of “Being-in -the world” that Heidegger frames as the analytic of Dasein understood as human existence in respect to its temporal and historical character. Heidegger’s unique contribution to philosophy begins with his identification of the human being’s existential-experiential situation with the ontological position itself. Saying that “Dasein is ontically distinctive in that it is ontological,” he points out that the condition of experiencing-existing is precisely that of rendering the Being (ὄν) of entities explicit or intelligible in thought and speech (λόγος), and is thus most basically the condition of a being concerned with Being. Thus, the question of onto-logy, literally the meaning of Being, is implicated in the very Being of the being who inquires after it. According to Heidegger, the prevailing Western consensus on ontology rests on the Cartesian cogito ergo sum. However central to philosophy as a whole, the question of what it means to “be” was never quite considered. Heidegger criticizes thinkers who regard humans as detached from the world around them, mere observers of objects from which they are independent. Instead, he
{"title":"Heidegger’s Existential Ontology and Its Reconstruction in Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia","authors":"M. Bykova","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2022.2033048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2022.2033048","url":null,"abstract":"Heidegger is one of the most original and important thinkers in the history of Western philosophy, but his philosophical project is difficult to grasp and appreciate. Formulating his quest as the revival of the question of Being that he believes has been ignored since the time of Aristotle, he brings to the fore the fundamental significance of ontology. Yet he remains critical of traditional ontological inquiry. In particular, he opposes Cartesian ontology, i.e., ontology of “thingness” that answers the question of Being in terms of beings, and in doing so conceals the truth of Being. Heidegger demonstrates that while ontological issues played a certain role in the history of philosophy, all previous philosophy was concerned with beings or things in their being. However, Being is not a thing, but that which “transcends” things, “the transcendens pure and simple.” This “transcendens” could be open only through the authentic experience of “Being-in -the world” that Heidegger frames as the analytic of Dasein understood as human existence in respect to its temporal and historical character. Heidegger’s unique contribution to philosophy begins with his identification of the human being’s existential-experiential situation with the ontological position itself. Saying that “Dasein is ontically distinctive in that it is ontological,” he points out that the condition of experiencing-existing is precisely that of rendering the Being (ὄν) of entities explicit or intelligible in thought and speech (λόγος), and is thus most basically the condition of a being concerned with Being. Thus, the question of onto-logy, literally the meaning of Being, is implicated in the very Being of the being who inquires after it. According to Heidegger, the prevailing Western consensus on ontology rests on the Cartesian cogito ergo sum. However central to philosophy as a whole, the question of what it means to “be” was never quite considered. Heidegger criticizes thinkers who regard humans as detached from the world around them, mere observers of objects from which they are independent. Instead, he","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"155 - 157"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46190714","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.1973316
Alexei G. Zhavoronkov
ABSTRACT This article is devoted to the issue of Martin Heidegger’s influence on Hannah Arendt as an offshoot of the debates over the Black Notebooks and Heidegger’s attitude toward National Socialism. It centers on a critical analysis of the main arguments of French historian of philosophy Emmanuel Faye, who asserted that Arendt’s views on National Socialism underwent a significant transformation under the influence of Heidegger’s philosophy. I demonstrate the counterproductiveness of Faye’s attempts to apply the most radical arguments from the Heidegger debate to analysis of Arendt’s texts and to inscribe this approach into the broader context of the discussion on race and racism in the works of “classical” philosophers. In the course of my analysis, I also discuss the impact of Faye’s work on contemporary Russian reception of Heidegger’s philosophy and the place his research occupies in contemporary Arendt studies.
{"title":"Heidegger, Arendt, and the Destruction of Thought: From the Black Notebooks to The Life of the Mind?","authors":"Alexei G. Zhavoronkov","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.1973316","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.1973316","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article is devoted to the issue of Martin Heidegger’s influence on Hannah Arendt as an offshoot of the debates over the Black Notebooks and Heidegger’s attitude toward National Socialism. It centers on a critical analysis of the main arguments of French historian of philosophy Emmanuel Faye, who asserted that Arendt’s views on National Socialism underwent a significant transformation under the influence of Heidegger’s philosophy. I demonstrate the counterproductiveness of Faye’s attempts to apply the most radical arguments from the Heidegger debate to analysis of Arendt’s texts and to inscribe this approach into the broader context of the discussion on race and racism in the works of “classical” philosophers. In the course of my analysis, I also discuss the impact of Faye’s work on contemporary Russian reception of Heidegger’s philosophy and the place his research occupies in contemporary Arendt studies.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"205 - 219"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42759506","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.1973317
Vladimir V. Mironov, Dagmar Mironowa
ABSTRACT This article analyzes the issues associated with the publication of Martin Heidegger’s Black Notebooks. We attempt to explain the very publication of this document as a kind of experiment the philosopher conducted on himself and his future readers. It represents a unique form of “deferred” thought that brings us the content of a bygone era, albeit necessarily refracted through contemporary perception. What ensures the integrity of this experiment is, on the one hand, the physical “absence of the author,” who cannot himself influence assessments of his text and actions, and on the other hand, a simultaneous “return of the author,” since his opinion must be taken into account. This thus serves as a kind of refutation of the postmodern “death of the author,” as his thoughts must be taken into account even in the case of his physical absence. We also investigate the problem of the philosopher’s ideological “intoxication” with the ideas of the National Socialist revolution, as manifested in his activities as a philosopher-ideologist while serving as Rector at the University of Freiburg. We analyze a number of the philosopher’s speeches in that regard and touch on the question of his responsibility for the ideas he “cast” into the world.
{"title":"Eine Knabe, der träumt, or: Intoxicated by Power","authors":"Vladimir V. Mironov, Dagmar Mironowa","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.1973317","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.1973317","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article analyzes the issues associated with the publication of Martin Heidegger’s Black Notebooks. We attempt to explain the very publication of this document as a kind of experiment the philosopher conducted on himself and his future readers. It represents a unique form of “deferred” thought that brings us the content of a bygone era, albeit necessarily refracted through contemporary perception. What ensures the integrity of this experiment is, on the one hand, the physical “absence of the author,” who cannot himself influence assessments of his text and actions, and on the other hand, a simultaneous “return of the author,” since his opinion must be taken into account. This thus serves as a kind of refutation of the postmodern “death of the author,” as his thoughts must be taken into account even in the case of his physical absence. We also investigate the problem of the philosopher’s ideological “intoxication” with the ideas of the National Socialist revolution, as manifested in his activities as a philosopher-ideologist while serving as Rector at the University of Freiburg. We analyze a number of the philosopher’s speeches in that regard and touch on the question of his responsibility for the ideas he “cast” into the world.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"220 - 242"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47258501","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.2023310
M. Bykova
{"title":"In Memory of a Colleague: Vladimir Vasilyevich Mironov (1953–2020)","authors":"M. Bykova","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.2023310","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.2023310","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"246 - 249"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44613312","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.2023311
M. Bykova
The philosopher, Nelly Vasilyevna Motroshilova, belonged to the generation of Russian intellectuals and cultural figures known as the Sixtiers (shestidesiatniki), the beginning of whose professional careers coincided with the official course of the Destalinization of Soviet society and whose ideals and civic position became associated with striving for a humanistic renewal of public life. As a philosopher, both by training and vocation, she was instrumental in the awakening of Russian philosophy from its dogmatic Marxist slumber and its creative revitalization in the late Soviet period. Her work on German idealism, with a special focus on Kant and Hegel, as well as her incisive examination of Husserl’s phenomenology, is what made her not only an esteemed professor but also one of the most influential historians of philosophy, widely known in both Russia and abroad. This work, rightfully cherished, contributed greatly to the development of philosophy in Russia. Her research over the course of her more-than-six-decade career, in addition to German classic and contemporary philosophy and phenomenology, included Russian philosophy of the Silver Age and of the Soviet period, philosophical sociology, social epistemology, as well as issues of contemporary civilizational progress. She was keenly interested in the antinomies of European unification, the processes which influence the development of values that make up European identity, the specifics of the formation of the contemporary concept of civil society, and the prospects for the social and economic progress of Russia. She warned of the danger of exaggerating the uniqueness of Russian philosophical thought and its consideration outside the context of the development of Western European philosophy. Confident that, despite the specificity of Russian philosophy, it has formed and developed as an integral part of world philosophical culture, she put at the center of her research not the question of differences and oppositions, but rather the investigation of the organic relationship of the
{"title":"In Memory of a Mentor, Colleague, and Friend: Nelly Vasilyevna Motroshilova (1934 – 2021)","authors":"M. Bykova","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.2023311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.2023311","url":null,"abstract":"The philosopher, Nelly Vasilyevna Motroshilova, belonged to the generation of Russian intellectuals and cultural figures known as the Sixtiers (shestidesiatniki), the beginning of whose professional careers coincided with the official course of the Destalinization of Soviet society and whose ideals and civic position became associated with striving for a humanistic renewal of public life. As a philosopher, both by training and vocation, she was instrumental in the awakening of Russian philosophy from its dogmatic Marxist slumber and its creative revitalization in the late Soviet period. Her work on German idealism, with a special focus on Kant and Hegel, as well as her incisive examination of Husserl’s phenomenology, is what made her not only an esteemed professor but also one of the most influential historians of philosophy, widely known in both Russia and abroad. This work, rightfully cherished, contributed greatly to the development of philosophy in Russia. Her research over the course of her more-than-six-decade career, in addition to German classic and contemporary philosophy and phenomenology, included Russian philosophy of the Silver Age and of the Soviet period, philosophical sociology, social epistemology, as well as issues of contemporary civilizational progress. She was keenly interested in the antinomies of European unification, the processes which influence the development of values that make up European identity, the specifics of the formation of the contemporary concept of civil society, and the prospects for the social and economic progress of Russia. She warned of the danger of exaggerating the uniqueness of Russian philosophical thought and its consideration outside the context of the development of Western European philosophy. Confident that, despite the specificity of Russian philosophy, it has formed and developed as an integral part of world philosophical culture, she put at the center of her research not the question of differences and oppositions, but rather the investigation of the organic relationship of the","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"250 - 254"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46737589","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.1973314
N. Motroshilova
ABSTRACT This article analyzes a number of personal and philosophical aspects of the debate over Heidegger’s Black Notebooks and his anti-Semitism. The first part of the article focuses on the personal features that influenced Heidegger’s social activities, as well as his statements on politics and culture. These features are then illustrated by examples of radical, stereotypical characterizations of “national essences” in the Black Notebooks. The final part of the article focuses on the role of the Black Notebooks in the context of Heidegger’s philosophical development, primarily the causes and consequences of his turn toward a new philosophy of Being. The contemporary debates on the Black Notebooks rightly point to the extreme biasedness of Heidegger’s statements formulated there, which is used as a justification for attempts to discredit his previous work and ideas. My core thesis is that while the views Heidegger expresses in the Black Notebooks undoubtedly deserve harsh criticism, they should not serve as a basis for contemporary scholars to reject the significance of Heidegger’s entire legacy.
{"title":"Back to Martin Heidegger’s Black Notebooks","authors":"N. Motroshilova","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.1973314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.1973314","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article analyzes a number of personal and philosophical aspects of the debate over Heidegger’s Black Notebooks and his anti-Semitism. The first part of the article focuses on the personal features that influenced Heidegger’s social activities, as well as his statements on politics and culture. These features are then illustrated by examples of radical, stereotypical characterizations of “national essences” in the Black Notebooks. The final part of the article focuses on the role of the Black Notebooks in the context of Heidegger’s philosophical development, primarily the causes and consequences of his turn toward a new philosophy of Being. The contemporary debates on the Black Notebooks rightly point to the extreme biasedness of Heidegger’s statements formulated there, which is used as a justification for attempts to discredit his previous work and ideas. My core thesis is that while the views Heidegger expresses in the Black Notebooks undoubtedly deserve harsh criticism, they should not serve as a basis for contemporary scholars to reject the significance of Heidegger’s entire legacy.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"158 - 182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49273305","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.1973319
Vladimir V. Mironov
My dear Aleksandr! I have finally found some quiet time for a slow and attentive read of your article “The Beginning of the Black Notebooks.” I very much liked the article, especially for your truly independent position on Heidegger’s difficult-tounderstand philosophy. Given your previous article on the features of Russian reception of Heidegger’s philosophy, I would like to start by providing a few explanations here, particularly of our own position. We have repeatedly highlighted the very point that comes up in your latest article, that Heidegger does not simply address the future, but does so in a deliberately enigmatic fashion, such that “the intended audience will understand.” In our second article (which I promised to give you a hard copy of), we once again draw attention to this and note that his position is more honest and consistent than that of many of those in postwar Germany who began engaging in “ideological selfpurification.” The case with Jaspers is likewise not so simple, as he is no “crystal-clear” figure in this regard. At some point we more or less suggested that he played a kind of trickster role in the Heidegger situation before stepping aside. But this is a separate issue. At the same time, we have repeatedly stipulated that we are not interested in Heidegger’s position as such but in assessing situations where philosophers find themselves aligning with the power structure. And this has clearly remained a relevant issue for our own time. The example of Heidegger is highly instructive here, since it shows that even the greatest of thinkers, however much he may sequester himself inside his own philosophical reflections, can still be used as a means. And, naturally, this has no effect on the greatness of his philosophical thought nor the ideas he developed. Another issue is that, given the way the world works, no matter how much we may distance ourselves from superficial readers, they will always exist and can pick and choose whichever of our arguments suits them. The Black
我亲爱的亚历山大！我终于找到了一些安静的时间，慢慢地、专心地阅读你的文章《黑色笔记本的开端》。我非常喜欢这篇文章，尤其是你对海德格尔难以理解的哲学的真正独立的立场。鉴于你之前关于俄罗斯接受海德格尔哲学的特点的文章，我想首先在这里提供一些解释，特别是我们自己的立场。我们在你的最新文章中反复强调了这一点，即海德格尔并不是简单地谈论未来，而是以一种刻意神秘的方式这样做，这样“目标受众就会理解”。在我们的第二篇文章中（我承诺会给你一份硬拷贝），我们再次提请注意这一点，并注意到他的立场比战后德国许多开始从事“意识形态自我净化”的人更为诚实和一致。雅斯贝尔斯的情况同样不那么简单，因为他在这方面不是一个“清晰”的人物。在某种程度上，我们或多或少地认为他在离开之前在海德格尔的处境中扮演了一种骗子的角色。但这是一个单独的问题。与此同时，我们一再规定，我们对海德格尔的立场不感兴趣，而是对哲学家发现自己与权力结构一致的情况进行评估。这显然仍然是我们这个时代的一个相关问题。海德格尔的例子在这里很有启发性，因为它表明，即使是最伟大的思想家，无论他如何将自己封闭在自己的哲学思考中，仍然可以作为一种手段。当然，这对他的哲学思想的伟大和他发展的思想都没有影响。另一个问题是，考虑到世界的运作方式，无论我们与肤浅的读者保持多大的距离，他们都会一直存在，并且可以选择我们的论点中适合他们的。The Black
{"title":"Letter from Vladimir V. Mironov to Aleksandr V. Mikhailovsky","authors":"Vladimir V. Mironov","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.1973319","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.1973319","url":null,"abstract":"My dear Aleksandr! I have finally found some quiet time for a slow and attentive read of your article “The Beginning of the Black Notebooks.” I very much liked the article, especially for your truly independent position on Heidegger’s difficult-tounderstand philosophy. Given your previous article on the features of Russian reception of Heidegger’s philosophy, I would like to start by providing a few explanations here, particularly of our own position. We have repeatedly highlighted the very point that comes up in your latest article, that Heidegger does not simply address the future, but does so in a deliberately enigmatic fashion, such that “the intended audience will understand.” In our second article (which I promised to give you a hard copy of), we once again draw attention to this and note that his position is more honest and consistent than that of many of those in postwar Germany who began engaging in “ideological selfpurification.” The case with Jaspers is likewise not so simple, as he is no “crystal-clear” figure in this regard. At some point we more or less suggested that he played a kind of trickster role in the Heidegger situation before stepping aside. But this is a separate issue. At the same time, we have repeatedly stipulated that we are not interested in Heidegger’s position as such but in assessing situations where philosophers find themselves aligning with the power structure. And this has clearly remained a relevant issue for our own time. The example of Heidegger is highly instructive here, since it shows that even the greatest of thinkers, however much he may sequester himself inside his own philosophical reflections, can still be used as a means. And, naturally, this has no effect on the greatness of his philosophical thought nor the ideas he developed. Another issue is that, given the way the world works, no matter how much we may distance ourselves from superficial readers, they will always exist and can pick and choose whichever of our arguments suits them. The Black","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"243 - 245"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49575245","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 : 2021-05-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.1973315
Aleksandr V. Mikhailovsky
ABSTRACT This article focuses on the Russian image of Heidegger as a thinker of Being, as a conservative critic of late modernity, and as a “post” philosopher. On the one hand, special interest in Heidegger’s theory of deconstruction developed in Russia under French postmodernism’s influence on late Soviet and post-Soviet philosophy. On the other hand, reception of Heidegger’s critique of European nihilism, total domination, and scientific technology contributed significantly to interest in issues related to the political implications of philosophy. The author sees the unique features of Heidegger’s Russian reception in its rejection of the rigid distinction between Heidegger’s “core” philosophy and the “incidental” circumstances associated with his political activities in the 1930s. The current debates over his Black Notebooks demonstrate not only the existence of an independent language of description and analysis in Russia’s philosophical milieu, but also an original tendency toward a holistic consideration of Heidegger’s thought. In addition to reviews of his Black Notebooks by Nelly V. Motroshilova, Vladimir V. Mironov, and Dagmar Mironowa in the pages of Voprosy filosofii, the author discusses the earlier works of Nelly V. Motroshilova, Vladimir V. Bibikhin, Arseny V. Gulyga, Valery A. Podoroga, and Aleksandr G. Dugin.
{"title":"Some Features of Russian Reception of Martin Heidegger in Relation to Debates Over His Black Notebooks","authors":"Aleksandr V. Mikhailovsky","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.1973315","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.1973315","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article focuses on the Russian image of Heidegger as a thinker of Being, as a conservative critic of late modernity, and as a “post” philosopher. On the one hand, special interest in Heidegger’s theory of deconstruction developed in Russia under French postmodernism’s influence on late Soviet and post-Soviet philosophy. On the other hand, reception of Heidegger’s critique of European nihilism, total domination, and scientific technology contributed significantly to interest in issues related to the political implications of philosophy. The author sees the unique features of Heidegger’s Russian reception in its rejection of the rigid distinction between Heidegger’s “core” philosophy and the “incidental” circumstances associated with his political activities in the 1930s. The current debates over his Black Notebooks demonstrate not only the existence of an independent language of description and analysis in Russia’s philosophical milieu, but also an original tendency toward a holistic consideration of Heidegger’s thought. In addition to reviews of his Black Notebooks by Nelly V. Motroshilova, Vladimir V. Mironov, and Dagmar Mironowa in the pages of Voprosy filosofii, the author discusses the earlier works of Nelly V. Motroshilova, Vladimir V. Bibikhin, Arseny V. Gulyga, Valery A. Podoroga, and Aleksandr G. Dugin.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"183 - 204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49269427","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 : 2021-03-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.1928938
O. Zhukova
ABSTRACT This article analyzes the artistic experience of Osip E. Mandelstam (1891–1938) in the context of the aesthetic and ideological transformations of Russian and European culture during the first half of the twentieth century and of the philosophical inquiries of that period. Overcoming the programmatic multitudes of modernist aesthetics, Mandelstam draws his own artistic ideas and images from those aesthetics while also opposing postclassical culture in the form of the artistic avant-garde. Relying on his own poetic and intellectual intuition, which he explicated and formalized theoretically in his essays and works of criticism, he asserts an authorly, reflective style of modern poetry that anticipated the post-nonclassical artistic culture characteristic of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.
{"title":"Mandelstam’s Poetry and Artistic–Philosophical Intuitions of Russian Culture","authors":"O. Zhukova","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.1928938","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.1928938","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article analyzes the artistic experience of Osip E. Mandelstam (1891–1938) in the context of the aesthetic and ideological transformations of Russian and European culture during the first half of the twentieth century and of the philosophical inquiries of that period. Overcoming the programmatic multitudes of modernist aesthetics, Mandelstam draws his own artistic ideas and images from those aesthetics while also opposing postclassical culture in the form of the artistic avant-garde. Relying on his own poetic and intellectual intuition, which he explicated and formalized theoretically in his essays and works of criticism, he asserts an authorly, reflective style of modern poetry that anticipated the post-nonclassical artistic culture characteristic of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"81 - 89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48801070","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 : 2021-03-04DOI: 10.1080/10611967.2021.1928946
I. Kondakov, Liliya B. Brusilovskaya
ABSTRACT This article focuses on the theoretical foundations of Osip Mandelstam’s semantic poetics, its cultural–philosophical richness, and its aesthetic novelty. The principal features of Mandelstam’s poetic world are its metaphorical and associative complexity and persistent struggle with metaphysical “emptiness.” Guided by Yu. Tynianov’s law that verse structure should be tight and unified, the poet achieves an exceptional “condensing” of his poetic texts, using this for his particular creative strategies aimed at enhancing the polysemy of the word, expanding its cultural–historical context, achieving semantic uncertainty, and combining philosophical “connectedness” with associative “disconnectedness.” These strategies include a reliance on semantic clusters, which involve “bunches” of contradictory meanings, chains of binary and ternary deep structures of text, and a dramatic combination of binarity and ternarity. Mandelstam’s creation of a “moiré” texture in his poetic texts contributes to the deepening of their tragic outlook of confusion and hopelessness, which corresponds to the realities of the Stalin era and the impending Great Terror.
{"title":"“For the World’s Complexity”: Intellectual “Condensing of Reality” in O. Mandelstam’s Works","authors":"I. Kondakov, Liliya B. Brusilovskaya","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2021.1928946","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2021.1928946","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article focuses on the theoretical foundations of Osip Mandelstam’s semantic poetics, its cultural–philosophical richness, and its aesthetic novelty. The principal features of Mandelstam’s poetic world are its metaphorical and associative complexity and persistent struggle with metaphysical “emptiness.” Guided by Yu. Tynianov’s law that verse structure should be tight and unified, the poet achieves an exceptional “condensing” of his poetic texts, using this for his particular creative strategies aimed at enhancing the polysemy of the word, expanding its cultural–historical context, achieving semantic uncertainty, and combining philosophical “connectedness” with associative “disconnectedness.” These strategies include a reliance on semantic clusters, which involve “bunches” of contradictory meanings, chains of binary and ternary deep structures of text, and a dramatic combination of binarity and ternarity. Mandelstam’s creation of a “moiré” texture in his poetic texts contributes to the deepening of their tragic outlook of confusion and hopelessness, which corresponds to the realities of the Stalin era and the impending Great Terror.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"59 1","pages":"125 - 135"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2021-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48906173","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：