Онтологический аргумент Малевича: Бог как совершенство, или вечный покой
Revolutionary in art, Malevich left reach theoretical legacy behind, that often differenciates from an image, that have been made about him. Theoretical tractate “Suprematism. World as non-objectivity or eternal peace” have been written after suggestion of Mikhail Gershenzon to write down philosophical ideas appeared in the mind. In this tractate Malevich revealed himself as a classical thinker – he meditates on God, his perfection and other attributes, such as eternity. He recalls Descartes ontological argument and the problem of cogito. Afterwards, he speculates on man’s nature after the Fall and on eternal peace of God, evoking reminiscences with Leibniz’s “Theodicy”. Ideas of Malevich can also be juxtaposed with Plato’s path to inteligible Forms and Kant’s thanscendental subject, as well as ideas of St Augustin, Anselm of Canterbury and Nicolaus of Cusa. I would like to draw new picture of intellectual world of Malevich the thinker, that certainly would illuminate the sense of his works of art.
This contribution to a volume on the“ultimate why-question” discusses ambiguities in Leibniz’s formulation of the question, “[. . . ] pourquoi il y a plus tôt quelque chose que rien”. This formulation poses two problems: Leibniz does not explain how to understand the concepts of “something” and “nothing”. And it is not clear, whether “something” and “nothing” are contradictory opposites, so that there is either nothing or something, or whether both concepts denote principles which are effective in the world at the same time. My analysis rests on the hypothesis that the relevant context for Leibniz’s question is the theology of creation.
Hence, the paper compares eight different approaches to “creation from nothing” (Thomists, Scotists, Taurellus, Lubinus, Timpler, Keckermann, Kircher, Knorr von Rosenroth, van Helmont). Candidates for the nihil the world was created from include absolute non-being, thoughts in God’s mind, unformed matter, imaginary space, or a self-contraction of the Divine spirit. These different approaches can be translated into different versions of the “ultimate why-question”. The paper concludes that Leibniz’s formulation contains a comparison between two Divine acts of creation, because not only “something”, but “nothing” as well owes its subsistence to the Divine will. This rises substantial questions: either God created first an imperfect entity in order to create the world as a whole, or Leibniz subscribes to an emanative understanding of creation that either levels the difference between creation and (natural) generation or is based on misunderstanding God as a material entity.
This article deals with the concept of omnipotence very important for contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. Within the analytic tradition it is usual to uncover an apparent tension between God’s omnipotence and other divine attributes. In response, some authors have proposed their own ideas on how classical problems of omnipotence can be solved in terms of possible worlds theory. In this paper we aim to consider the approaches developed by Geach, Adams and Plantinga. While admitting that each of them has made a significant contribution to the refinement of the concept of omnipotence, we still point out a number of important challenges that these authors were not able to overcome.
The facsimile reproduction of Victory Over the Sun, the Russian text faced with a parallel English translation. This new translation is by an erudite master of the word, Evgeny Steiner. Even the innovative language and humour of Victor Khlebnikov’s Prologue, written largely in neologisms, are captured in Dr Steiner’s English rendition, as are alliteration and sound patterns. (Publisher’s Forword).
There is a chronological study in this paper consisting of three parts: 1) the conception of simplicity of God maintained by St. Thomas Aquinas, 2) rejection of God’s simplicity undertaken by Alvin Plantinga, and 3) an attempt to return to the idea of the simplicity of God in modern analytic research.
The problem of free will remains one of the primary unsolved problems of John Sealre’s philosophy. In his book ‘Freedom and Neurobilology’ (2007) Searle proposes two alternative hypothesis that would allow one to make sense of the nature of freedom, but ultimately finds both of them unsatisfactory. In this paper we propose a modified version of Searle’s argument, which attempts to reconcile the common sense intuitions with physiological determinism on the basis of Kahneman’s theory of cognitive systems. Specifically, we focus on the collision between the fast and the slow cognitive system as the basis for the experience of freedom.
The author analyzes Dostoevsky's ideas about confession and theodicy and shows how they were influenced by Vladimir Solov'ev and St. Augustine
The book describes theinterdependent relations between the multilingualism and literary creativity.
This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS 2009, which took place in Moscow, Russia, on July 26-31, 2009.
The 18 papers presented together with 5 invited contributions were carefully reviewed and selected from approximately 50 submissions. Originally centered around research on knowledge representation and reasoning with conceptual graphs, over the years ICCS has broadened its scope to include innovations from a wider range of theories and related practices, among them other forms of graph-based formalisms like RDF or existential graphs, formal concept analysis, semantic Web technologies, ontologies, concept mapping and more.
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.