回到冷漠主义:阿列克谢·洛采夫和雅克·德里达的新柏拉图主义

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY VOPROSY FILOSOFII Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.21146/0042-8744-2023-9-141-150
Irina V. Gravina
{"title":"回到冷漠主义:阿列克谢·洛采夫和雅克·德里达的新柏拉图主义","authors":"Irina V. Gravina","doi":"10.21146/0042-8744-2023-9-141-150","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this article is to initiate a virtual dialogue between the ideas of two twentieth-century philosophers who turned their interest to the concept of the apophatic unity – A.F. Losev and Jacques Derrida. This thopic, as well as the interest in the concepts of Neo-Platonism in general, one of the basic ones in the works of Losev, turns out to be in the focus of modern European philoso­phy, generating an independent intellectual current – Henology. As Losev re­marked, European scholarship for a long time have been ignored the Neoplaton­ists’ interpretations of Plato, while his philosophical system is based precisely on the Christian version of Neoplatonism. It will be noted that both thinkers draw the idea of apophaticism from the texts of the Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagiticum, but have understood it differently. Losev’s system implies that the one is expressed symbolically and in name, suggesting Christian overtones, while Jacques Derrida has a radical apophatic, an unattainable supersubstantial reality, designated by him as negative theology. But his deconstruction project, however, is not Christian. It will be concluded that the topic requires a compara­tive analysis of the ideas of the neo-platonist Losev with his variant of apophatic henology, which he presents as onomatology and symbolism (the expressed unity) and a completely different variant of the topic in Jacques Derrida’s works, who deconstructaed antique-medieval term of the one and looked for ways to “avoid talking” about it.","PeriodicalId":46795,"journal":{"name":"VOPROSY FILOSOFII","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Return to Apophaticism: Neo-Platonism of Alexey Losev and Jacques Derrida\",\"authors\":\"Irina V. Gravina\",\"doi\":\"10.21146/0042-8744-2023-9-141-150\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purpose of this article is to initiate a virtual dialogue between the ideas of two twentieth-century philosophers who turned their interest to the concept of the apophatic unity – A.F. Losev and Jacques Derrida. This thopic, as well as the interest in the concepts of Neo-Platonism in general, one of the basic ones in the works of Losev, turns out to be in the focus of modern European philoso­phy, generating an independent intellectual current – Henology. As Losev re­marked, European scholarship for a long time have been ignored the Neoplaton­ists’ interpretations of Plato, while his philosophical system is based precisely on the Christian version of Neoplatonism. It will be noted that both thinkers draw the idea of apophaticism from the texts of the Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagiticum, but have understood it differently. Losev’s system implies that the one is expressed symbolically and in name, suggesting Christian overtones, while Jacques Derrida has a radical apophatic, an unattainable supersubstantial reality, designated by him as negative theology. But his deconstruction project, however, is not Christian. It will be concluded that the topic requires a compara­tive analysis of the ideas of the neo-platonist Losev with his variant of apophatic henology, which he presents as onomatology and symbolism (the expressed unity) and a completely different variant of the topic in Jacques Derrida’s works, who deconstructaed antique-medieval term of the one and looked for ways to “avoid talking” about it.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46795,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"VOPROSY FILOSOFII\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"VOPROSY FILOSOFII\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2023-9-141-150\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"VOPROSY FILOSOFII","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2023-9-141-150","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文的目的是在两位20世纪哲学家之间发起一场虚拟对话,他们将兴趣转向了冷漠统一的概念——A.F. Losev和Jacques Derrida。这个主题,以及对新柏拉图主义概念的兴趣,是洛采夫作品中的基本概念之一,成为现代欧洲哲学的焦点,产生了一种独立的知识潮流- Henology。正如Losev重新指出的那样,欧洲学术界长期以来一直忽略了新柏拉图主义者对柏拉图的解释,而他的哲学体系恰恰是基于基督教版本的新柏拉图主义。值得注意的是,两位思想家都从《酒神文集》的文本中得出了避语主义的概念,但他们对避语主义的理解不同。Losev的系统暗示,一个是象征性的和名义上的表达,暗示了基督教的含义,而雅克·德里达有一个激进的冷漠,一个无法实现的超实体的现实,被他指定为消极神学。然而,他的解构项目并不是基督教的。结论是,这个主题需要对新柏拉图主义者Losev的思想进行比较分析,他将其作为象声学和象征主义(表达的统一)的变体,以及雅克·德里达作品中完全不同的主题变体,后者解构了古老的中世纪术语,并寻找“避免谈论”它的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Return to Apophaticism: Neo-Platonism of Alexey Losev and Jacques Derrida
The purpose of this article is to initiate a virtual dialogue between the ideas of two twentieth-century philosophers who turned their interest to the concept of the apophatic unity – A.F. Losev and Jacques Derrida. This thopic, as well as the interest in the concepts of Neo-Platonism in general, one of the basic ones in the works of Losev, turns out to be in the focus of modern European philoso­phy, generating an independent intellectual current – Henology. As Losev re­marked, European scholarship for a long time have been ignored the Neoplaton­ists’ interpretations of Plato, while his philosophical system is based precisely on the Christian version of Neoplatonism. It will be noted that both thinkers draw the idea of apophaticism from the texts of the Corpus Dionysiacum Areopagiticum, but have understood it differently. Losev’s system implies that the one is expressed symbolically and in name, suggesting Christian overtones, while Jacques Derrida has a radical apophatic, an unattainable supersubstantial reality, designated by him as negative theology. But his deconstruction project, however, is not Christian. It will be concluded that the topic requires a compara­tive analysis of the ideas of the neo-platonist Losev with his variant of apophatic henology, which he presents as onomatology and symbolism (the expressed unity) and a completely different variant of the topic in Jacques Derrida’s works, who deconstructaed antique-medieval term of the one and looked for ways to “avoid talking” about it.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
VOPROSY FILOSOFII
VOPROSY FILOSOFII PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
50.00%
发文量
100
期刊介绍: "Вопросы философии" - академическое научное издание, центральный философский журнал в России. В настоящее время является органом Президиума Российской Академии Наук. Журнал "Вопросы философии" исторически тесно связан с Институтом философии РАН. Выходит ежемесячно. Журнал был основан в июле 1947 г. Интернет-версия журнала запущена в мае 2009 года.
期刊最新文献
VIZGIN, Viktor P. (2021) Between Philosophy and Literature. Works of Different Years The Symbol of the Dragon in the Cosmogonic Schemes of Ancient China Kang Youwei, Buddhism and Catholicism. Kang Youwei, The Travelogue of Italy, Trans. from Chinese into Russian and Comm. by Dmitry E. Martynov А Man in The Space of Digital Culture On the Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence and the Scientific Revolution
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1