Article
Русский Плотин
The new commented translation of the treatises of the Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus (205-270 CE) with Greek text, edited by J. Chitchaline in chronological order. The edition is discussed in comparison with earlier translations of Plotinus Enneads made by G. Malevansky and T. Sidash.
The paper is devoted to investigation of the series of extremely interesting cases observed in the life and in the textual practice of the last Neoplatonist communities of the 3rd – 6th centuries can be interpreted by an intent researcher as the set of modes by which the intellectual tradition of Antiquity and, more important, the Hellenistic intellectuals themselves survived in the environment which increasingly became more and more alien to them. Being observed from a specific, “inner-Platonic” point of view, these modes can be described as the kinds of projection of the Platonic dialectic of “the one” and “the other” (presented in Plato’s dialogue Parmenides) on social and political plans of reality. Irrespective of the specifically Platonic approach, these modes can be observed in the general perspective of the crisis suffered by the traditional Hellenistic types of communities and the Hellenistic intellectual communities particularly.
The book examines two main topics related to the culture of the Spanish Republican exile in the Soviet Union: cultural centers of Spaniards in the USSR and the participation of Spanish exilées in Soviet cultural projects such as the review 'La Literatura Internacional' (later, Literatura Soviética) and the Spanish department of the publishing house Progress, in the period from 1937 until the 70ties. It's the first general study of the culture of the Spanish community in the Soviet Union based on the documents from the Spanish and Russian archives, news papers and journals, and testimonies of the Spanish exilées in the USSR.
The article offers an interpretation of the “philosophy of time” in Plato’s and Plotinus’ works. Basing on a careful historical and semantic analysis, the author introduces the idea that for both philosophers temporal problematics has ontological foundation. Consequently, time (χρόνος) and Eternity (αἰών) are considered as specific modes of existence which are typical for different areas of the being.
The article reconstructs philosophical context of polemics on the status of commonness in the Arian controversy. I suggest that this doctrine of Eunomius according to which the higher we go up the hierarchy of beings, the lesser the horizontal commonness in the nature of individual beings we see, may have been closely related to the Middle- and Neoplatonic interpretation of Aristotle's Categories which implied that categories and especially the category of the second substance (corresponding to species and genera) could be applied only to the corporeal realm. Keeping it in mind, I demonstrate connection between the argumentation of Eunomius and the philosophical teaching of Iamblichus. I point out the opposite accounts on status of the universal between Eunomius and Gregory of Nyssa, who created treatise "Against Eunomius" refuting Eunomius's "Apology for Apology". Two strategies of the hierarchy of beings can be identified in Gregory's "Against Eunomius". I think that each of them is connected with the Tree of Porphyry. One of these strategies is opposite to the doctrine of Eunomius, since for Gregory the most common is placed at the summit of the hierarchy, and measure of commonness decreases when we go down the hierarchy. I suggest that it was a specific doctrine of Eunomius on the universal which triggered a philosophical reaction manifested in the doctrine of Gregory of Nyssa on the hierarchy of beings.
The study is devoted to the conception of "Sophia" in the culture of late antiquity - the problem and notional field, on which the Hellenistic philosophers, Gnostics, Christian and Jewish thinkers posed and solved the questions on the ontological basis of the universe and human person, on the relations of the immanent and the absolute.
The book is adressed to historians of philosophy and religion, to students of philosophical and historical faculties, and to wide circle of readers.
Philosophy has never been an obvious life choice, especially in the absence of apparent practical usefulness. The intellectual effort and moral discipline it exacts appeared uninviting “from the outside.” However, the philosophical ideals of theoretical precision and living virtuously are what has shaped the cultural landscape of the West since Antiquity. This paradox arose because the ancients never confined their philosophy to the systematic exposition of doctrine. Orations, treatises, dialogues and letters aimed at persuading people to become lovers of wisdom, not metaphorically, but truly and passionately. Rhetorical feats, logical intricacies, or mystical experience served to recruit adherents, to promote and defend philosophy, to support adherents and guide them towards their goal. Protreptic (from the Greek, “to exhort,” “to convert”) was the literary form that served all these functions. Content and mode of expression varied considerably when targeting classical Greek aristocracy, Hellenistic schoolrooms or members of the early Church where the tradition of protreptic was soon appropriated. This volume seeks to illuminate both the diversity and the continuity of protreptic in the work of a wide range of authors, from Parmenides to Augustine. The persistence of the literary form bears witness to a continued fascination with the call of wisdom.
An article of the famous historian of Ancient philosophy is translated into Russian for the participants of educational project ΤΕΧΝΗ. Theoretical foundations of Arts, sciences and technology in the Greco-Roman World" (Novosibirsk, Russia). Original publication: Plotinus and the Gnostics on the Generation of Matter, Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought, Essays in honour of A. H. Armstrong, eds. H. J. Blumenthal, R. A. Markus. London: Variorum publications, 1981, pp. 108-123.
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.