The article is devoted to a visual and commemorative analysis of the monument to the victims of the Japanese-Korean War (vianbu). The installation of visual-sociological analysis is realized in this case not by means of exclusively visual hermeneutic, on the contrary, the idea of the monument is deciphered in the context of the history and museum culture of Korea. It is shown that the meaning of the monument is recreated through rituals of performative resonant memory. The historical events to which the monument is dedicated still do not have a consensus in national and international historical memory, therefore they require a performative format of commemoration as a constantly redefined and confirmed by narrative accomplices of the commemoration. Among the participants in the commemorative process around the Vianbu memorial are social actors with various mnemonic abilities and institutional resources (actually surviving witnesses, activists of the commemoration fund and the public). In response to the social demand for commemoration, a new memorial aesthetic of anti-monumentality emerges, commensurate with the person, pulsating in the weekly ritual mode and habitable, like with scarf wrapped street sculpture.
The article refutes two common distortions of A.A. Bogdanov' s creative heritage. The first is “god-building.” The second is the search for “occult” roots in the concept of collectivist transfusiology. A fundamental difference was made between A. Bogdanov"s rationalistic socialism and the “socialist religion” of A. Lunacharsky and M. Gorky, for which the neuropsychological approach was used in a broad cultural context (the difference in the dominant hemispheres of the brain). The absence of a connection between the metaphor of “vampirism” in A.A. Bogdanov"s social thought and his concept of comradely exchange of blood is exposed. Conjectures that falsify the initial history of the Institute of Blood Transfusion have been exposed.
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.