In my article (talk), based on dialogue ‘Parmenides’, I argue that Plato is not a Platonist, because he does not postulate an independent existence of the "World of Forms". However, he argues that the forms are necessary for our cognition of things. Therefore, we should not reject the existence of Plato’s Forms, but to clarify their epistemic and ontological status. From epistemic point of view, Platonic theory of knowledge is similar to Kantian theory of a priori (transcendentalism). In ontological sense Plato’s Forms should be understood as not special intelligible things (objects), but as the properties [of things] and Plato postulated ‘partaking’ things to some Forms: every thing exist as a particular set of properties (attributes, qualities) and a totality of them (pre)determines this thing (thereby, the properties are ‘primary’ and the things are ‘secondary’). Thus, Plato’s ontology in contrast to the substantial ‘ontology of things’ (Democritus, Aristotle) can be considered as the alternative predicative ‘ontology of properties’.
This text is a Russian translation of Hermann Diels’s Introduction to his edition of Parmenides’ poem (Diels, Hermann. Parmenides: Lehrgedicht. Mit einem Anhang über Griechische Thüren und Schlösser. Berlin, 1897. S. 3–27). First, Diels claims (against earlier critics) that Parmenides is a poor poet, and so the editors strive in vain to make his poem look artistically impeccable. If so, and the artistic design of the proem is alien to Parmenides, then we are justified in looking for precedents of this form in the previous tradition: Homer, Hesiod, orphics and what Diels calls “shamanistic” epic. This latter suggestion is then elaborated at length. In conclusion, Diels explains why he did not “normalize” the transmitted text according to the Homeric dialect.
For the Russian uncensored poets of the second half of the 20th century there was an acute problem of building their own creative continuity with respect particularly to the part of the Russian culture, which traditions, according to many of them, were artificially interrupted during the implantation of socialist realism. Thus, according to Lev Losev, a significant figure of his generation, on that moment just entering the world of poetry, was * Павловец Михаил Георгиевич — кандидат филологических наук, доцент, Школа филологии Факультета гуманитарных наук Научно-исследовательского университета «Высшая школа экономики»; email@example.com ** Публикация подготовлена в рамках поддержанного РГНФ научного проекта № 16–04–00413. 270 Vladimir Mayakovsky, whose canonization in the Soviet period afforded an opportunity to join legally the creation of poets of his circle, first and foremost — V elimir Khlebnikov. However, you can see how in the perception of a number of uncensored poets Mayakovsky not gives way, but opposes to Khlebnikov. For example, for Alexander Kondratov, the Leningrad poet-neofuturist, Khlebnikov was among three most significant poets, whereas in his works he gave very critical evaluation to Mayakovsky primarily because of his political involvement. In addition, «transfuturist» Sergei Sigey in his article «The purpose of the “futuristic writing”» categorically denied the Mayakovsky’s right to be considered as a true futurist because of his deficiently aesthetic radicalism.
On the base of analyzing the 4th chapter of Nemesius's treatise On the Nature of Man the author makes an attempt to trace origins of the notion of human body's genesis from forth humors (blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile). Studying the legacy of Hippocrates, Aristotle and Galen gives us the foundation to presuppose the nature, origin and character of clash between pangenetic and epigenetic theories in Nemesius's view on structure of semen.
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 paper is dedicated to the comparison of views on the nature (specific) of the mathematics of Plato, Kant and Husserl. The basis for this comparison is famous the Divide Line of Plato (The Republic). The crucial development of such an understanding of mathematical reasoning (as the construction of (mathematical) concepts in intuition (by means of schematа)) is going on in Kant's transcendental philosophy.
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 article deals with the architectonic of Blaise Pascal's "Pensees". "Pensees" is the text combined with fragments. Its plot may be found in poetics of "order". The thematical and compositional center is the genre of apology.