ОСНОВНЫЕ ИДЕИ ГЕГЕЛЕВСКИХ ЛЕКЦИЙ ПО ЛОГИКЕ И МЕТАФИЗИКЕ (ЗИМНИЙ СЕМЕСТР 1801-1802)
Translation of Hegel's Lectures
S.N. Trubetzkoy (1862–1905) – the outstanding Russian thinker and public figure. The author of the original concept of “concrete idealism”, he is a staunch follower of the philosophical ideas of V.S. Solov’ev. Trubetskoy is one of the best representatives of the national intellectual elite. In his works he argues values of European modernity, the spiritual and political freedom of the individual and society. According to the author, philosophical ideas and political beliefs of Trubetskoy are single source. In the heart of the philosophical system of “concrete idealism” is specific logocentric ontology of freedom. The liberal concept of political freedom grows out of the Christian intuition of personal immortality. Trubetskoy defends independent significance of Russian religious metaphysics, seeing in the Eastern Christian tradition of philosophizing the potential for ontological enrichment of the rationalist thought in Modern Era. Thus, in philosophy, he shows the way of synthesis for Russian and European thought, and in social life he protects the path of peaceful transformation of the political system and development of Russian society.
This paper proposes a rethinking and comparison of habitus concept of P. Bourdieu in the context of the dialectical tradition of V. G. Hegel and the concept of human thinking and speech L. S. Vygotsky, designed to demonstrate the complementarity of the contribution of authors to build a reflexive sociological theory. The formation of this theory was one of the goals of the sociologist P. Bourdieu. The coice of authors is made due to similar logic of theoretical insights in their works.
The paper attempts to analyse the views of Boris Poplavsky (1903-1935), an émigré poet, writer and amateur philosopher, on the historical dialectics and the role of revolutionary violence and terror. The main emphasis is laid on his essay "Lichnost' i Obschchestvo" ("Personality and Society", 1934) as its line of argument seems to be based to a certain extent on the revolutionary (in every sense of the world) interpretation of Hegel's "Phänomenologie des Geistes" by the Russian émigré philosopher Alexandre Kojève. Poplavsky acknowledges the necessity of revolutionary violence, in particular in his novel "Domoi s nebes" ("Homeward from Heaven"), possibly because of his attendance and participation in Kojève's seminar on Hegel (1933-1939) held at the Ecole pratique des hautes études in Paris. Poplavsky officially attended the seminar in the 1934-1935 academic year, though the close analysis of his essay shows that he might have participated in Kojève's classes of the previous year as well, especially the ones dedicated to Hegel's dialectics of death.
The paper is devoted to the explication of main concepts and ideas of Schelling’s first speculative theology i.e. philosophy of identity (1801-1806). As a main source the author analyzes Schelling’s Presentation Of My System Of Philosophy and I. Troxler’s summary of Schelling’s lectures delivered in Summer semester 1801. The latter text is important because it contains (1) an outline of general principles of Schelling’s world-outlook, (2) a comprehensive explication for the paragraphs of Presentation. The author presents reconstruction of the whole Schelling’s all-unity doctrine with accent to the concept of “intellectual contemplation” without which the doctrine loses its inner logic. The paper also deals with the criticism of Schelling’s absolute identity doctrine by his contemporaries. C.A. Eschenmayer poses sharp and uncomfortable questions which make Schelling modify his theory with an idea of the so-called Abfall. Serious objections to the Schelling’s doctrine come also from J.G. Fichte and J. Fries. This intra-traditional criticism gives us possibility to mark out specific traits of the early form of Schelling’s philosophy of identity. The mains of them are (a) the interpretation of intellectual contemplation as the exit from the subjectivity and (b) the conception of the indissoluble dialectical connection between the finite world and the Absolute however without detailed basis.
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.