LA VIE NE S’INTERROMPT JAMAIS JULIAN OKSMAN ET LA RÉVOLUTION
The scientific views and methodology of Julian Oksman (1895-1970), prominent Russian philologist, were shaping in pre- and revolutionary periods. This part of his biography remains substantially unknown. Using Oksman’s personal records and early literary works, this paper aims to explore his interpretation of the 1917 Revolution as well as its impact on his scientific research. The paper gives a double explanation of the problem: a retrospective one based on Oksman’s latest evidences on the revolution and a synchronistic one based on the letters to his wife in the 1910s. The paper also reveals the philosophical roots of Oksman’s methodology, raises the issue ‘Oksman and formalists,’ and studies his ideas in the context of ideological and methodological explorations of the revolutionary period.
In his article Vladimir Kantor explores the destiny of Russia intelligentsia within the context of cultural crisis that took place at the turn of XIX and XX centuries, analyzing the Vekhovs, a group of leading intellectuals who ran a collection of essays, titled "Vekhi", studying their relationship towards that Russian cultural phenomenon. To author, the intelligentsia is considered as a critical factor in the development of Russian history. Within a context of the struggle around the "Vekhi", by referring to famous philosophical and literature books, published in 1909, the author focuses on relationships between intelligentsia and ordinary people, their attractive and repulsive interaction, which represents the key theme of the Russian destiny. Any historical movement occurs through tragedy; heroes who move the history have to sacrifice themselves to provide that movement. Confirmation to that idea would be rejection and exclusion of the Russian intelligentsia from the country's mentality throughout a number of generations which ultimately led to its tragic being.
Information in the SGEM 2017 Conference Proceedings is subject to change without notice. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, for any purpose, without the express written permission of the International Scientific Council of SGEM.
This note discusses one of the largely super uous conjectures unearthed by J. Diggle and given an honourable place in his otherwise very succinct and e cient apparatus criticus. Reported by none of the recent editors, and earlier by Prinz–Wecklein and Verrall, Herwerden’s μελανόσπλαγχνος in Euripides’ Medea 109 is an undesirable change of the sound, if idiosyncratic, mss. reading μεγαλόσπλαγχνος. Diggle, however, having (independently) conjectured the same word, patched together arguments for it. An additional attraction this conjecture gained in his eyes was due to his misreading of the remark (quoted in the heading) Wilamowitz made proofreading the rst volume of Murray’s OCT in 1901. While Wilamowitz discouraged Murray from reporting this conjecture with his usual “besser fort”, Diggle, on passing acquaintance with the letters, took it to mean “Herw. besser fort[asse]”, thus corroborating his point.
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 paper outlines key concepts of Hanna Arendt’s political philosophy. The main purpose of the work is to analyze the political virtues — courage, pride and respect, as well as the fundamental abilities (powers) to forgive and to promise. Besides, it’s important to pay attention to Arendt’s understanding of political sphere (as the Web of Relationships) and the role of language in political life. Taking these into account, the main political virtues and abilities of ζῷον πολιτικόν bind together past, present and future of political body into one space of history (ἱστορία).