Где работают аргументы ad homonem
The author examines the delicate relationship between such phenomena as philosophy and popular culture. After formulating three attitudes of philosophers working with popular culture (left-critical, right-critical and left-objectivistic), the author proposes the term «crossroad» to show at what point of evolution of philosophy of culture and social theory during the XXth century converged popular culture and philosophy. This «crossroad» turned out to be post-modernism in such representation in which the American Marxist philosopher Fredric Jame-son began to talk about. Postmodernism before Jameson was understood as a trend in art, and only Jameson came up with the idea to extend it to the entire culture that dissolved in during the 1970s in the economy. It was Jameson who first stated the thesis that nowadays high and popular culture represent a single space. Briefly describing Jameson's approach, the author shows what this synthesis of postmodern philosophy and popular culture has led to. Recog-nizing popular culture as legitimate, and its then state as «postmodern», social philosophers began to develop the idea of expansion of culture into the social sphere, however, not in everything agreeing with Jameson. The author emphasizes the idea that the beginning of the XXI century was marked by a surge of philosophical interest in popular culture.
The paper offers an interpretation of Plato’s dialogue Gorgias in the context of post- Nietzschean political thought (M. Heidegger, L. Strauss, H. Arendt, G. Deleuze, M. Foucault). Each interlocutor of the dialogue claims that his speech is free. Two different political logics are introduced: «geometrical» (as in the conversation between Socrates and Polus) and «erotic» (as in the conversation between Socrates and Kallikles). The philosopher is able to make use of both languages. In the end, it is only Socrates who truly speaks freely, because philosophy doesn’t seek to be loyal to any of these two logics as it only aspires to solve a political collision between freedom and justice.
Russian rock music of the 1980s - 2000s by the opinion of many scholars has become a phenomenon largely formed by the religious interests of its creators. For example, the fascination of one of the classics of Russian rock Boris Grebenshikov for Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism is well known. But scholars rarely raise the question not about religious, but about esoteric influences in the works of Russian rockers. In the paper, we plan to review key influences of the esoteric teachings on the formation of Russian rock music of the turn of the century. This overview will examine in details the works of bands Va-Bank, Nautilus Pompilius, the Orgy of the righteous, Rada and Ternovnik, Civil defense and performers Sergei Kuryokhin, Vasily Shumov, Psoy Korolenko. It is possible to highlight several key questions that are important to the review: which of the representatives of Western esotericism inspired Russian musicians; what images, teachings, theories they used in their music and songs; how conscious was their appeal to esotericism; was it a tribute to fashion, artistic technique or an expression of personal opinion. The answers to these questions will help to reveal the specific nature of the influence of Western esotericism on the Russian rock and to show its originality or maybe even its uniqueness.
The paper deals with the political sense of the dialectical method of Plato. Dialectics is often understood as a pure logical procedure. However the two forms of the dialectical discourse (mentioned in the “Phaedrus”) must be interpreted politically: the first one is a movement of freedom, the second one is a movement of justice. The paper offers a comparison of different conception of dialectics by Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, and Paul Ricoeur.
The description of the elenctic method in the Sophist (230a–e) is often believed to be merely retrospective. However, some parallels with Aristotle’s Sophistical refutations suggest that the dialogue as a whole has a clear elenctic dimension. Having faced an apparent refutation (falsehood paradox), the interlocutors find themselves in an impasse. According to Aristotle, to solve such aporiai one must eliminate ambiguity and homonymy by making distinctions, i.e. recur to the diairesis. The same tactics is applied by the Stranger and Theaetetus.
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.