{"title":"整体性和极权主义","authors":"Vladimir Marchenkov","doi":"10.1007/s11212-023-09599-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This brief paper is a polemical response to Mikhail Epstein’s review of the <i>Palgrave Handbook of Russian Thought</i>, and especially to his claim that the widely acknowledged tendency of Russian philosophy towards holistic thinking is akin to political totalitarianism, not to say its underlying cause. My argument is that philosophical and political or ideological thought are fundamentally different in their nature and purpose, and cannot be usefully identified with one another as Epstein does. Epstein’s claim is, I argue, a manifestation of the modern outlook at large, incapable of grasping the difference and, worse, offering precisely the opposite of a solution to the problems posed by totalitarianism.</p>","PeriodicalId":43055,"journal":{"name":"Studies in East European Thought","volume":"190 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wholeness and totalitarianism\",\"authors\":\"Vladimir Marchenkov\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11212-023-09599-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This brief paper is a polemical response to Mikhail Epstein’s review of the <i>Palgrave Handbook of Russian Thought</i>, and especially to his claim that the widely acknowledged tendency of Russian philosophy towards holistic thinking is akin to political totalitarianism, not to say its underlying cause. My argument is that philosophical and political or ideological thought are fundamentally different in their nature and purpose, and cannot be usefully identified with one another as Epstein does. Epstein’s claim is, I argue, a manifestation of the modern outlook at large, incapable of grasping the difference and, worse, offering precisely the opposite of a solution to the problems posed by totalitarianism.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43055,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in East European Thought\",\"volume\":\"190 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in East European Thought\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-023-09599-x\",\"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":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-023-09599-x","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
这篇简短的文章是对米哈伊尔·爱泼斯坦(Mikhail Epstein)对《帕尔格雷夫俄罗斯思想手册》(Palgrave Handbook of Russian Thought)的评论的一种论战性回应,尤其是对他所声称的俄罗斯哲学普遍承认的整体思维倾向类似于政治极权主义的观点的回应,更不用说其根本原因了。我的观点是,哲学思想和政治思想或意识形态思想在本质和目的上是根本不同的,不能像爱泼斯坦那样有效地相互认同。我认为,爱泼斯坦的说法总体上是现代观点的一种表现,无法把握其中的区别,更糟糕的是,它提供的解决方案与极权主义带来的问题恰恰相反。
This brief paper is a polemical response to Mikhail Epstein’s review of the Palgrave Handbook of Russian Thought, and especially to his claim that the widely acknowledged tendency of Russian philosophy towards holistic thinking is akin to political totalitarianism, not to say its underlying cause. My argument is that philosophical and political or ideological thought are fundamentally different in their nature and purpose, and cannot be usefully identified with one another as Epstein does. Epstein’s claim is, I argue, a manifestation of the modern outlook at large, incapable of grasping the difference and, worse, offering precisely the opposite of a solution to the problems posed by totalitarianism.
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