Почему мы интересуемся причинами? О трансцендентальном истоке основания у Хайдеггера
Heidegger’s philosophy has an extraordinarily complex relationship to Plato. Heidegger sees Plato as the founder of that Western metaphysics which he claims should be overcome. However, his interpretation of Plato, upon which his reconstruction of the history of philosophy rests, is anything but incontestable from a philological point of view, and has generated much criticism. This criticism, however, has been hampered by the fact that the only example in Heidegger’s work of a detailed analysis of a Platonic dialogue, namely the Lectures on Plato’s Sophist held in Marburg in 1924–25, remained unpublished until 1992. Thus, only in the last twenty years have scholars been able to develop a more nuanced understanding of Heidegger’s interpretation of Plato. Even then, however, the focus has been primarily on the importance of the lectures for Heidegger’s own thought. The possible impact of Heidegger’s interpretation on the study of Platonic philosophy itself has been neglected. This volume, therefore, offers a critical re-evaluation of Heidegger as an interpreter of Plato.
The collective monogrtaph "Phänomenologie und Buddhismus" brings together research articles from philosophers as well as from specialists in oriental studies. In the center of attention stays the intersection between the phenomenological philosophical discourse and the (mostly far-eastern) buddhist tradition.
This article deals with reconstruction of representations of V. Frankl about the Person as a basis of an individualization and self$formation. Methodological bases of V. Frankl-understanding of the Person in philosophical anthropology of M. Sheler and psychological categories by means of which the process of actualization of humans personal origin is described are considered, and also is given the estimation of sights of V. Frankl from a point of view of a range of the problems solved by psychology of the personality.
личность, свобода, ценности, Совесть, смысл, person, freedom, Values, conscience, meaning
Ludwig Wittgenstein and Martin Heidegger are arguably the two most influential philosophers of the twentieth century. Their work not only reshaped the philosophical landscape, but also left its mark on other disciplines, including political science, theology, anthropology, ecology, mathematics, cultural studies, literary theory, and architecture. Both sought to challenge the assumptions governing the traditions they inherited, to question the very terms in which philosophy’s problems had been posed, and to open up new avenues of thought for thinkers of all stripes. And despite considerable differences in style and in the traditions they inherited, the similarities between Wittgenstein and Heidegger are striking. Comparative work of these thinkers has only increased in recent decades, but no collection has yet explored the various ways in which Wittgenstein and Heidegger can be drawn into dialogue. As such, these essays stage genuine dialogues, with aspects of Wittgenstein’s elucidations answering or problematizing aspects of Heidegger’s, and vice versa. The result is a broad-ranging collection of essays that provides a series of openings and provocations that will serve as a reference point for future work that draws on the writings of these two philosophers.
This paper is devoted to the problem of cultural crisis and those points of view on this problem that were maintained by russian and western philosophers. It was written a lot of books concerning this subject. At the beginning of XX century many philosophers within different philosophical tradition and schools began to reason about the crisis of culture. For some of them it was important to stress religious aspect of crisis: the mankind has lost the belief in God — this is the reason of crisis. For others it was importatt to understand the social aspect of cultural crisis.
Cultural crisis is the crisis of values: human and freedom. In the first half of the XXth century the culture has not found answers for two questions: what is freedom and what is human?
The author looks into the contradictions of security and the paradigms of their resolution in the modern era. The issue of security is considered in conjunction with the issue of justice. Emphasi is placed on the fact that the disharmony of the modern security paradigms is just temporary. As the global civil society is growing stronger, the paradigm of human rights must once again regain its priority. Just as in the case of the return of the multipolarity of the world, the paradigm of cooperation and non-intervention must get back the lost rights
There are shown situations when such ordinary things as a shop, a workshop, an insurance company, a long distance train, a clinic, a hospital, a stage scenery, some sport activity or military service, unfavorable ecologic or informational situations further the dependant condition of a person, in the article. Besides such person experiences not only psychological of physical discomfort, but such emotions, that ruin its nature, change the behavior, touch the soul, restrain the psyche, perturb the heart, the whole body. There are made several propositions of freedom infringement counteraction concerning every kind of exploitation, including the criminal law resistance to it.
There are analyzed the encountered in the title kinds of exploitation, uncovered its social danger and given the criminal legal characteristics, pointed out the ways of counteraction in the article. The author substantiates the conclusions concerning the freedom from such kinds of exploitation and the measures of combating encroachments on this freedom. There is shown the significance of the civil society institutions for the relevant areas of penal policy.
The article considers the Views of L. N. Tolstoy not only as a representative, but also as a accomplisher of the Enlightenment. A comparison of his philosophy with the ideas of Spinoza and Diderot made it possible to clarify some aspects of the transition to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. The comparison of General and specific features of the three philosophers was subjected to a special analysis. Special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview by Tolstoy and Diderot. An important aspect is researched the contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers.
Tolstoy's transition from rational perception of life to its religious and existential bases is shown. Tolstoy gradually moves away from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a man, who living the commandments of Christ. Starting from the educational worldview, Tolstoy ended by creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which were relevant for the 20th century.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.