Хайдеггер и российское философствование: продуктивность дистанции
The paper offers a critical analysis of a programmatic article by Alexander Mikhailovsky devoted to the reception of the “late” Heidegger’s philosophy in Russian philosophical community. I mainly focus on Mikhailovsky’s thesis on the peculiar esoterism of Heidegger’s “being-historical” thought demanding a special philosophical practice of a “meaningful silence” considered as the only commensurate approach to it. Moreover, according to Mikhailovsky, only Russian cultural and philosophical space (by which he understands mainly the Russia’s conservative cultural and political thought) retains the ability to perform this kind of silence, while Western researchers and scholars have completely lost it.
I put forward the following main arguments against the A. Mikhailovsky’s theses: 1) at once several varieties of “esoterism” are inherent in Heidegger’s philosophy (both “early” and “late”), none of which requires a disavowal of public scientific discussion and, instead, an undertaking of a particular socio-political mission; 2) Heidegger’s conception of the so-called “other beginning” is not a radical-reformist but diagnostic one, that is to say, in its basic intentions it is not active revolutionary but rather quietist; 3) By now, the most substantial contribution to the systematic research of Heidegger’s legacy is made by Western interpreters; 4) Heidegger’s publishing policy testifies precisely to his intention to prevent ideologized forms of appropriation of his philosophy and, on the contrary, to guarantee the possibility of its systematic scientific reception.
In addition to issues of content, I pay attention to the rhetorical form of the article in question. From my point of view, Alexander Mikhailovsky’s rhetorical strategy draws on a general tonality that came to be strongly associated with reception of Heidegger in Russian speaking cultural space due to the translations of Heidegger’s works into Russian in the 1980-90s. In conclusion I present in general outline my own – alternative – view on the productive strategies of treating the Heidegger’s theoretical legacy.