Friedrich Shelling and Alexei Losev. An Attempt to Define the Issues
This article outlines the main threads in the reception of Friedrich Schelling’s ideas by Alexei F. Losev as reflected in his philosophical works. The author singles out three main sets of issues where Schelling’s influence on Losev manifests itself especially vividly: the dialectical interpretation of primordial essence, the conditions for the possibility of language, and the theory of the symbol and philosophy of mythology. The author shows that within Losev’s reception of Schelling’s philosophy, there could be observed a tightly woven solidarity with Schelling’s position, an instrumental appropriation of individual Schellingian concepts, productive misunderstanding, and precise hermeneutic penetration into the semantic interrelations of various semantic clusters within Schelling’s extensive corpus of texts.
In this paper the author explores how such phenomena of consciousness as a symbolization and a functioning of cultural phenomena are interrelated. It seems important to find out specifics of symbol as a product of symbolization, distinguish it from the other logical-semantic categories. To solve these problems, in general, the author turns to Losev’s and Cassirer’s approaches. As a result of the investigation, it becomes clear that there is a symbolic function of consciousness, which is primarily responsible for mediating of the material human perception, providing a principle for the organization of entire systems of meanings. The main paper thesis is the following: the principle of symbolical organization of the content plays a key role in the process of applying the meanings to the reality. So, it proves that the formation and functioning of the sphere of cultural phenomena is strongly influenced by symbolical principle.
The author refl ects upon the book The Sources of cultural-historical psychology: philosophical-humanitarian context by V. Zinchenko, B. Pruzhinin, T. Schedrina. Moscow, 2010.
This article is based on the analysis of the commentaries to Goethe’s “West-Oestlicher Divan” for a new bilingual edition; the purpose of these commen- taries was to explore the inner wholeness of a book created at the boundary of Eastern and Western cultures, and also its metapoetical plot. The problem of the commenting is that the whole plot is “beaded” on the frame of Eastern poets’ quotes and images – precise, minimally changed, retold, versified, often given without quote marks, as if “dissolved” in Goethe’s works. These quotes are fit into various contexts and create a special “evasive” book form, where the meaning of a word “blinks” from between sep- arate words, voids, cycles, finding its way into Goethe’s paraphenomenal symbolic re- ality that is one for the poetic word-symbol, nature, East and West.
This paper is devoted to the description and analysis of C. A. Eschenmayer’s philosophy of faith and of his discussion with F. W. J. Schelling. The author exposes the main ideas of Eschenmayer’s important work «Philosophy In Its Transition To The Non-Philosophy» (1803) in which he criticizes Schelling’s philosophy of the absolute identity pointing out the vagueness of the origin of multitude from the all-unity. At the material of Schelling’s answer («Philosophy and Religion», 1804) the author shows how Schelling begins to change his theoretical point of view. The world now is falling away from God. The paper deals also with their discussion of 1810-1812 around Schelling’s philosophy of liberty. Here Eschenmayer’s theology becomes completely apophatic. Owing to his incomprehension of the Schelling’s thought of those times and to his ﬁ deism, his contradictions with Schelling become irreconciliable. But the both philosophers maintain friendly relations, it isn’t a case of Jacobi-Schelling controversy. Conclusions that may be drawn from the paper are following: (1) the philosophy of Eschenmayer is a particular case of the philosophy of feeling and faith which has a concrete historical nature. (2) The late «positive» Schelling’s philosophy can be considered as a successful «third way» between the unsteady rationalism and the theoretical deadlock of ﬁ deism.
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.