Семен Франк о Льве Толстом: «ведающее незнание»
The article describes the dynamics of relationship of S.L. Frank towards Leo Tolstoy within several decades. Tolstoy’s logic and ethics are explored through the prism of Frank’s teaching and outlook. Particular attention is paid to the two foundations of this prism: the ethical and logical collisions of Tolstoy and the intelligentsia and the study of «dual» and «whole» Tolstoy in Frank’s earlier and later articles. The analysis allows us to notice not only the ethical, but also the philosophical influence of Tolstoy on Frank himself on a number of key problems connected both with the logic and methodology of cognition, and with the doctrine of the soul and society. Tolstoy is considered as an endless magic point of attraction not only for Frank, but also for the intelligentsia. The Russian «thinker and artist» has always been a life guide and a model of uncompromising honesty, allowing to approach, as closely as possible, the understanding of his teaching and personality, but he remained to be an eternal mystery which cannot be evolved even by an omniscient man. Frank clearly showed that Tolstoy is a universe, which is always greater than what we can understand in it.
The article deals with one storyline of the novel Anna Karenina that stands as the key for the research into the significance of anglomania in the novel.
The 1850-1870s in Russian culture is the times of most intensive formation of the image of the UK as a highly complex combination of real and mythological elements.
The novel Anna Karenina, which Tolstoy himself called the novel about modern life, sets forth the fashion for everything ‘English’ in Russian high society in the 1870s with almost documentary precision.
The episode the article deals with is Anna Karenina's reading of an English novel. The article looks at different theories of the origin of the novel and suggests a particular novel as the source for the English novel in Anna Karenina.
Article argues that the knowledge of the particular English novel contributes not only to the research of anglomania in Anna Karenina and other Tolstoy's works but also gives a significant insight into the study of the characters in the novel.
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.
Leo Tolstoy and Max Weber on value neutrality of university research The problem of value neutrality of science is considered on the basis of works by Leo Tolstoy and Max Weber. In the first part of the article, the statements on the value neutrality of scientific knowledge and university teaching by Weber and Tolstoy are made explicit and analyzed in a comparative perspective. In the second part, the central problem of Tolstoy and Weber, that is, a rational choice of the value paradigm, is studied systematically. Differences in their assumptions and conclusions are shown. In the third part, a historical commentary to the context of Tolstoys and Webers works is given. The works are treated as episodes in a wider modern history of the value neutralization of the scientific knowledge and university teaching. The specifics of this process are tightly connected with the fundamental principles of the modern research university (the Humboldtian model of university).
Article is dedicated to the problem of the formation of Lev Tolstoy's world views and evolution of his views on the violence and the war. There is shown Tolstoy's way from the patriotic directivity to the substantiation of idea nonviolence and the nonresistance to evil by force.
The response of Leo Tolstoy to the First Russian Revolution highlighted new aspects of his teaching, which had long occupied an important place in Russian debates about the most important. He himself began his own personal uprising against the government back in the 70s, and his sermon of non-violence managed to acquire polemical works, arrays of pros and cons, and even sects, but the revolution showed that everything is not so transparent in his understanding of violence and state and the role of personality in history. There was a mutual reflection of two mirrors - Tolstoy and the Revolution. And this revealed some element that fell in Tolstoy’s previous doctrine: the motive, the invisibility of which led to a simplified reading of Tolstoy’s already deliberately simple teachings, to a suspiciously easy revelation of obvious contradictions and inconsistencies in his writings.
Collection is published conclusions of Tolstovedov.
Philosophical understanding claims to universality. Meaning, understanding, sense-formation are fundamentally human characteristics of being as a meaningful picture of the world. Sense-formation is realized always from a certain position, from a certain point of view. Therefore, it is always personal, communicative and socially representable. In this regard, the concepts and practices of philosophical sense-formation, proposed and implemented by Michael Epstein in a series of network projects and scientific monographs, as well as in the discussed article [Epstein 2019] are indicative. The author assesses the prospects of the modern philosophy of the digitizing era in the context proposed by M.N. Epstein "philosophy of synthesis". It is about philosophizing in the genre of projective dictionaries (philosophy, humanitarian knowledge in general). The projective dictionary appears as a single hypertext, which expands the scope of the conceptual integrity of the entire project. This approach realizes today's humanist position as potentiation of being, opening up new possibilities of culture. A projective dictionary, in essence, is a generative model that latently contains the energy of divergent vectors of further work, which can embody different concepts, protect different positions, but use a common terminological and conceptual resource.
The paper discusses the semantic models that determine the practice of the Russian translation of the key terminology of Karl Marx, as well as the ensuing consequences of choosing a simplifying interpretational strategy for such a translation and determining its political pragmatics. This strategy is a request for a scientific concept that rejects the prospect of capitalist development, as well as the goals of propaganda and political education. The terms der Wert (value), das Wertding (valuable thing), die Wertgegenstaendlichkeit (value objectivity) were translated as «cost» in the canonical translation, enshrined in the publication of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism (1937). At the same time, two fundamentally different aspects of the product der Gebrauchswert (value as utility is a quality characteristic, not quantifiable) and der Tauschwert (exchange value, the ability to proportionally exchange) were translated, respectively, as use cost and exchange cost. This interpretation formed the basis of discursive practices in education, social sciences, journalism, and media.
The «value» translation versions were actually removed from scientific use. However, the «cost paradigm» significantly reduces the analysis of market relations and contexts. This is confirmed by the appeal to the original texts of the first and second editions of «Capital».
Discussions regarding the transfer of K.Marx’s terminology in «Capital» are not only instructive, but have important perspectives. Nowadays, the question has grown beyond the scope of a word dispute. The failure of value-to-value reduction is manifested in the problems of neoliberalistic marginalism, the coming to the fore social and cultural (neoinstitutionalism, «culture matters»), psychological and communicative (R.Taler) factors of economic relations. At the same time, the value nature of market relations is important both in concepts like «global value chains» (M. Porter, G. Jerreffy) and in the practices of transformative investment (Impact Investing), including on the blockchain platform. This forces to return to the conceptual content of the original terms and rethinking practices appropriate narration.
Within a brief historical period, BRICS as an inter-State association has become an influential player in the world economy and politics. BRICS is a primarily political entity, and in that regard, the BRICS grouping correlates with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). However, not all the expectations placed on the SCO by the founding countries at the time of its creation in 2001 have been met so far. The question is to what extent expectations may be fulfilled in case of BRICS.
The article contains a substantiation of the prospects for a philosophical interpretation of history, as a narrative knowledge by nature. The schemes and levels of historical narration are considered. Special attention is paid to the specifics of the Russian history conceptualization.
The stable nature of historical narratives is associated with value-normative constants, expressing the features of the historical experience of a particular society. It is all the more important to reveal the factors of the historical narratives dynamics and the diachrony generated by them. Such factors are associated with the context of the formation and translation of historical knowledge, with the participation in the historical comprehension of various social groups. The task of the philosophy of history is not so much to give answers regarding the past development of society and to build generalizing narratives, how many to identify the questions that historical explanatory narratives can answer in the context of contemporary problems common to the entire Russian society.