巴赫金与舍斯托夫谈陀思妥耶夫斯基:未定的对话

IF 0.3 3区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS Studies in East European Thought Pub Date : 2023-10-11 DOI:10.1007/s11212-023-09581-7
Marina G. Ogden
{"title":"巴赫金与舍斯托夫谈陀思妥耶夫斯基:未定的对话","authors":"Marina G. Ogden","doi":"10.1007/s11212-023-09581-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Bakhtin’s view of the history of the novel, through the lens of Dostoevsky’s writing in his famous study on Dostoevsky’s poetics (1963), has had a significant impact on the way we read Dostoevsky today. On the other hand, Shestov’s original explorations of the human soul, which were drawn on his reading of Dostoevsky and made a lasting impression on his contemporaries, are still relatively unknown to the English-speaking reader. Having traced the history of the regenerations of Dostoevsky’s convictions in his earlier works, in his mature writings Shestov proposed that at a time of deep crisis the human mind may acquire a new dimension, which lies beyond the limits of the comprehensible and the explicable. Building on his analysis of Dostoevsky’s life and work, a transformative shift in Shestov’s own worldview, led to significant alterations in his reading of Dostoevsky in the final years of his life. In this essay, as I draw the two thinkers into a dialogue, I try to look beyond the obvious differences in the two philosophers’ views (though I acknowledge them) and, with respect to both thinkers’ outstanding contributions to twentieth-century European culture, I attempt to discover a number of key developing points in their views derived from their shared love of Dostoevsky’s art. Contrasting Shestov’s interpretation of Dostoevsky to that of Bakhtin’s, I argue that despite their different methods, standpoints, and philosophical views, and despite the seemingly antagonizing nature of their observations, Bakhtin and Shestov arrived at a number of conclusions, which contributed to our present understanding of Dostoevsky’s worldview.","PeriodicalId":43055,"journal":{"name":"Studies in East European Thought","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mikhail Bakhtin and Lev Shestov on Dostoevsky: the unfinalized dialogue\",\"authors\":\"Marina G. Ogden\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11212-023-09581-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Bakhtin’s view of the history of the novel, through the lens of Dostoevsky’s writing in his famous study on Dostoevsky’s poetics (1963), has had a significant impact on the way we read Dostoevsky today. On the other hand, Shestov’s original explorations of the human soul, which were drawn on his reading of Dostoevsky and made a lasting impression on his contemporaries, are still relatively unknown to the English-speaking reader. Having traced the history of the regenerations of Dostoevsky’s convictions in his earlier works, in his mature writings Shestov proposed that at a time of deep crisis the human mind may acquire a new dimension, which lies beyond the limits of the comprehensible and the explicable. Building on his analysis of Dostoevsky’s life and work, a transformative shift in Shestov’s own worldview, led to significant alterations in his reading of Dostoevsky in the final years of his life. In this essay, as I draw the two thinkers into a dialogue, I try to look beyond the obvious differences in the two philosophers’ views (though I acknowledge them) and, with respect to both thinkers’ outstanding contributions to twentieth-century European culture, I attempt to discover a number of key developing points in their views derived from their shared love of Dostoevsky’s art. Contrasting Shestov’s interpretation of Dostoevsky to that of Bakhtin’s, I argue that despite their different methods, standpoints, and philosophical views, and despite the seemingly antagonizing nature of their observations, Bakhtin and Shestov arrived at a number of conclusions, which contributed to our present understanding of Dostoevsky’s worldview.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43055,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in East European Thought\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in East European Thought\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-023-09581-7\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in East European Thought","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-023-09581-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

巴赫金在其著名的《陀思妥耶夫斯基诗学研究》(1963)中,通过陀思妥耶夫斯基的写作,对小说的历史观对我们今天阅读陀思妥耶夫斯基的方式产生了重大影响。另一方面,舍斯托夫在阅读陀思妥耶夫斯基(Dostoevsky)的作品时,对人类灵魂进行了独到的探索,给同时代的人留下了深刻的印象,但英语国家的读者却相对不甚了解。在陀思妥耶夫斯基的早期作品中,舍斯托夫追溯了他的信念重生的历史,在他的成熟作品中,舍斯托夫提出,在一个深刻的危机时刻,人类的思想可能会获得一个新的维度,它超越了可理解和可解释的界限。基于对陀思妥耶夫斯基生活和工作的分析,舍斯托夫自己的世界观发生了革命性的转变,导致他在生命的最后几年对陀思妥耶夫斯基的阅读发生了重大变化。在这篇文章中,当我把这两位思想家引入对话时,我试图超越两位哲学家观点的明显差异(尽管我承认它们),并且,考虑到两位思想家对二十世纪欧洲文化的杰出贡献,我试图发现他们的观点中一些关键的发展点,这些观点源于他们对陀思妥耶夫斯基艺术的共同热爱。对比舍斯托夫对陀思妥耶夫斯基和巴赫金的解释,我认为,尽管他们的方法、立场和哲学观点不同,尽管他们的观察似乎是敌对的,但巴赫金和舍斯托夫得出了许多结论,这些结论有助于我们目前对陀思妥耶夫斯基世界观的理解。
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
Mikhail Bakhtin and Lev Shestov on Dostoevsky: the unfinalized dialogue
Abstract Bakhtin’s view of the history of the novel, through the lens of Dostoevsky’s writing in his famous study on Dostoevsky’s poetics (1963), has had a significant impact on the way we read Dostoevsky today. On the other hand, Shestov’s original explorations of the human soul, which were drawn on his reading of Dostoevsky and made a lasting impression on his contemporaries, are still relatively unknown to the English-speaking reader. Having traced the history of the regenerations of Dostoevsky’s convictions in his earlier works, in his mature writings Shestov proposed that at a time of deep crisis the human mind may acquire a new dimension, which lies beyond the limits of the comprehensible and the explicable. Building on his analysis of Dostoevsky’s life and work, a transformative shift in Shestov’s own worldview, led to significant alterations in his reading of Dostoevsky in the final years of his life. In this essay, as I draw the two thinkers into a dialogue, I try to look beyond the obvious differences in the two philosophers’ views (though I acknowledge them) and, with respect to both thinkers’ outstanding contributions to twentieth-century European culture, I attempt to discover a number of key developing points in their views derived from their shared love of Dostoevsky’s art. Contrasting Shestov’s interpretation of Dostoevsky to that of Bakhtin’s, I argue that despite their different methods, standpoints, and philosophical views, and despite the seemingly antagonizing nature of their observations, Bakhtin and Shestov arrived at a number of conclusions, which contributed to our present understanding of Dostoevsky’s worldview.
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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: Studies in East European Thought (SEET) provides a forum for impartial scholarly discussion of philosophical thought and intellectual history of East and Central Europe, Russia, as well as post-Soviet states. SEET offers a venue for philosophical dialogue in a variety of relevant fields of study. Predominantly a philosophical journal, SEET welcomes work that crosses established boundaries among disciplines whether by bringing other disciplines to respond to traditional philosophical questions or by using philosophical reflection to address specific disciplinary issues. The journal publishes original papers by scholars working in the field without discriminating them based on their geographical origin and nationality. The editorial team considers quality of work to be the sole criterion of publication. In addition to original scholarly essays, SEET publishes translations of philosophical texts not previously available in the West, as well as book reviews. * A forum for scholarly discussion on philosophical thought and intellectual history of East and Central Europe, Russia, and post-Soviet states * Includes analytic, comparative, and historical studies of thinkers, philosophical and intellectual schools and traditions * In addition to original papers, publishes translations and book reviews * Although formatting is not crucial at the review stage, authors are strongly advised to refer to the Submission Guidelines of SEET to which articles accepted for publication must conform
期刊最新文献
Syntax and temporality in the photographic thinking of Fyodor Dostoevsky and Bruno Schulz Georges Florovsky on nuclear restraint and responsibility: introduction to Florovsky’s letter Georges Florovsky: Letter to Davis McCaughey Russian pseudo-conservatism in an international context The role of gossip and money in Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Insulted and Injured, The Idiot and Evdokiia Rostopchina’s “Rank and Money” («Chiny i Den’gi» (1838))
×
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