Три принципа "политической теологии" в круге Штефана Георге
This paper is concerned with one of the most prominent examples of German intellectual history at the beginning of the 20th century, the George circle. The study identifies three principles which are crucial for the “political theology” of the George circle – the principle of covenant, the principle of the charismatic leader and the principle of dominance and service. The main hypothesis is that the George circle was an ideologically integrated group of intellectuals who sought to reform politics by means of aesthetics, and influenced the language and ideology of the “conservative revolution” in Weimar Germany.
Hans Blumenberg’s Legitimacy of the Modern Age makes a powerful case for the autonomy of modernity with regard to the preceding Christian epoch – but it also emphasizes at least one continuity between the two, which can be framed via what Blumenberg casts as their common enemy: Gnosticism. Far from being external or secondary, this opposition to Gnosticism structurally defines both of these epochs as their task. What is, however, at stake in this common task? Reading with and against Blumenberg – and following his own account of the epochal shift to modernity – we will shed light, first, on the genealogy and, secondly, the political theology of Blumenbergian modernity, its structure of sovereignty, and key related concepts, such as the world, position, possibility, legitimation, theodicy, immanence, and self-assertion.
"How Many Bodies has the King?" is a critical essay on one of the most influential twentieth century medievalists, Ernst Kantorowicz. It was written in occasion of the recently published long-expected russian translation of his famous "The King's Two Bodies". The author proposes his own view on the role and place of Kantorowicz in the development of medieval studies in the past decades on today.
In the article, the author analyses the conception of people as a political body (corpus politicum) described in the text of the “Siete Partidas” of Alphonse X the Wise, king of Castile and Leon (1252–1284). In the frame of this theory, the people are considered as a whole body and the king as its soul, heart and head. The multitude can become the people only being united by the love to the king. The author criticizes the hypothesis according to which the principal sources of Alphonse's political theory were the works of St.Thomas Aquinas and John of Salisbury and proposed the other version. According to his version, such sources were, first of all, the texts of the tradition of political Augustinism, i.e., the “De civitate Dei” of St.Augustine and the “Sententiarum Libri tres” of Isidor of Seville.
This is a contribution to the French-Russian Conference on Joseph de Maistre. Joseph de Maistre was a famous theorist and proponent of counter-revolution. He criticized the theory of the popular sovereignty of Rousseau and elaborated his own theory of the royal sovereignty. However, he was no advocate of the so-called decisionism, as Carl Schmitt depicted him in his writings on political theology.
A collection of Carl Schmitt's works into Russian including "The concept of the Political" and other essays and a large afterword and commentaries.
Ever since the interlaced exchanges between Walter Benjamin, Carl Schmitt, and Jacob Taubes, the discourse of “political theology” has been a space structured by a set of positions – and oppositions – around a set of concepts: nomos and anomia, justice and katechon, order and nothingness, sovereignty and exception. For Schmitt, it was famously the modern sovereign who decided on the state of exception (to the law) so that a lawful order could be (re-)established. More recently, from Roberto Esposito and Giorgio Agamben to recent work in decolonial and Black studies, many have diagnosed and explored the structure of the constitutive exception at the heart of Western modernity – the way the law (of progress, providence, salvation, universal history, etc.) depends for its workings on that which it excludes, represses, exploits, and covers up. From this perspective, sovereignty becomes the decision on such exclusions and serves to uphold the very power to exclude. If we recall also the discourse of the sovereign subject as specifically modern – grasped, for example, by Hans Blumenberg in the figure of the subject’s “self-assertion” as the foundation of modern scientific worldview and the modern idea of progress – we can appreciate how fundamentally modernity depends on the conjunction of sovereignty, law, and exception. The question of modernity itself – the modern world as a structure of power and exclusion that we have inherited – thus stands at the heart of the political-theological discourse. Given that across the various inflections of political theology, sovereignty has been repeatedly seen as upholding order at the expense of the anomia indexed by the exception, an accompanying interest has emerged across contemporary theory: how to think the nonplace of exception without sovereignty, as ungrounding or fully disinvested from the work of the law (of history, humanity, or the world).
This paper speculatively reconstructs a unique intervention into this ongoing debate from within an early 19th-century Russian context – an intervention that likewise attempts to think the exception immanently, from within, affirming its full nonrelation to, and even nullity vis-à-vis, the Western, Christian-modern (world-historical) regime. However, instead of positioning exception and sovereignty against each other – whether by way of the latter deciding on and repressing the former, or the former absolutely refusing the latter – this intervention re-configures the logic of sovereignty itself, so that the sovereign act becomes an act of uncovering and affirming the void of exception as such (as the void – without tradition, history, or law). Nothingness itself, thought of as totally ungrounding the historical-whole, here becomes operative through and as the sovereign act and the figure of the sovereign.
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.