Достоевский и Писарев: две прекрасные души в литературном поле
This paper develops a new perspective on the ideological antagonism between Dostoevsky and the radical critic Dmitri Pisarev, as representative of a more fundamental rift within the nineteenth-century intelligentsia—the so-called “conscience of Russian society.” Drawing on Hegel’s thematics of conscience and the beautiful soul from the Phenomenology of Spirit (which played a vital role in the emergence of the intelligentsia), the analysis links Dostoevsky’s polemic with Pisarev to an unavoidable dissonance within the inner logic of conscience, which Hegel dramatizes as a clash between two members of the conscientious community: a “beautiful soul” that acts and another “beautiful soul” that never acts, but only judges. Throughout their polemic Dostoevsky and Pisarev resemble these two “beautiful souls,” who do not realize that they represent two essential sides of conscience. At the same time, given that this conflict pitted two rival journals operating within an open literary market, the analysis also draws on Bourdieu’s sociological conception of the “literary field” and his notion of “symbolic capital.” From this perspective, Dostoevsky and Pisarev exemplify two diametrically opposed approaches to accumulating symbolic capital. Although the conflict between these two beautiful souls initially leads to an impasse among the intelligentsia, it will eventually transform the nature of conscientious action.
This article deals with reconstruction of representations of V. Frankl about the Person as a basis of an individualization and self$formation. Methodological bases of V. Frankl-understanding of the Person in philosophical anthropology of M. Sheler and psychological categories by means of which the process of actualization of humans personal origin is described are considered, and also is given the estimation of sights of V. Frankl from a point of view of a range of the problems solved by psychology of the personality.
личность, свобода, ценности, Совесть, смысл, person, freedom, Values, conscience, meaning
Hegel’s philosophy has witnessed periods of revival and oblivion, at times considered to be an unrivalled and all-embracing system of thought, but often renounced with no less ardour. This book renews the dialogue with Hegel by looking at his legacy as a source of insight and judgement that helps us rethink contemporary economics. This book focuses on a concept of institution which is equally important for Hegel's political philosophy and for economic theory to date.
The key contributions of this Hegelian perspective on economics lead us to the synthesis of traditional approaches and new ideas gained in economic experiments and advanced by neuroeconomists, sociologists and cognitive scientists. The proper account of contemporary 'civil society' involves comprehending it as a historically evolving totality of individual minds, ideas and intersubjective structures that are mutually dependent, tied by recognitive relations, and assert themselves as a whole in the ongoing performative movement of 'objective spitit'. The ethics of recognition is paired with the ethics of associations that supports moral principles and gives them true, concrete universality.
This unusual constellation of seemingly remote fields suggests that Hegel, read in a pragmatist mode, anticipated the new theories and philosophies of extended mind, social cognition and performativity. By providing a new conceptual apparatus and reformulating the theory of institutions in the light of this new synthesis, this book claims to give new meaning both to Hegel as interpreted from today, and to the social sciences. Seen from this perspective, such phenomena as cooperation in games, personal identity or justice in the version of Amartya Sen's 'realization-focused comparisons' are reinscribed into the logic of institutional theory. This 'Hegel' clearly goes beyond the limits of philosophical discussion and becomes a decisive reference for economists, sociologists, political scientists and other scholars who study the foundations and consequences of human sociality and try to explore and design the institutions necessary for a worthy common life.
This paper provides some comparison of Herzen’s and Hegel’s notions on philosophy of history and claims to represent Herzen, anatomizing the situation of European riots of the mid. 19th century, as а thinker of current interest. While Herzen asserts that history is a development process with no predetermined goal, Hegel (whose works were very important for Russian intellectuals of Herzen’s generation) proclaims that history has already ended with the Napoleon’s Empire and his own — Hegel’s — philosophy.
In his article V.N. Musolov considering the image Antichrist, created by V.l. Soloviev, as a means of ideological struggle, author examines embedded in this image meanings and target audience this image. The author gives special attention to coincidence between the description of Antichrist Soloviev's and subsequent interpretations of the Russian intelligentsia.
The political process is a constant interaction between the power and opposition. The political process is a constant clash between the formal and informal, between direct speech and metaphors. Power always makes sense only if there is resistance. The power resistance is balanced in favor of its dialectical opposition. Practice protests are taking place at all political regimes, but not always the possibility of resistance are similar. In some political systems interlocutor on government and realization of the right to revolt are an essential political and moral principle. In other cases, in dictatorships, the right to revolt conquered by a hard struggle, not always being efficient and not always getting massive. The author shows how, depending on the cultural traditions of the images may vary resistance. Indeed, the figure of the rebellious person differently perceived in the political landscape. The discourse of resistance can be filled by individual practitioners of dissent, as well as robust tradition of protest. Relations between the power and rebellious man shows and interpreted by the author in a variety of subjects belonging to different cultures. From the point of view of the author, in the practices of rebellious man in his quest for freedom and demonstrate their own position, you can find both special and general, is equally emphasizes the integrity of the political process.
The paper is focused on the study of reaction of italian literature critics on the publication of the Boris Pasternak's novel "Doctor Jivago". The analysys of the book ""Doctor Jivago", Pasternak, 1958, Italy" (published in Russian language in "Reka vremen", 2012, in Moscow) is given. The papers of italian writers, critics and historians of literature, who reacted immediately upon the publication of the novel (A. Moravia, I. Calvino, F.Fortini, C. Cassola, C. Salinari ecc.) are studied and analised.
In the article the patterns of the realization of emotional utterances in dialogic and monologic speech are described. The author pays special attention to the characteristic features of the speech of a speaker feeling psychic tension and to the compositional-pragmatic peculiarities of dialogic and monologic text.