This article outlines the context of two Logos issues, “Anti-Latour,” “UAVs, Elevators, Scallops, Zimbabwe Bush Pump,” and “New Ontologies.” These three issues issues are based on the idea of an atlas meant to map out the intellectual landscape of actor-network theory (ANT) and flat ontologies. Over the course of a few decades of its existence, ANT has evolved from a singular approach in science and technology studies into a transdisciplinary family of theories joined together by a set of basic properties, partial connections, and common references. This article maps out the trajectories of ANT development and reception. Bruno Latour is discussed as one of the main assemblage points of the approach. A one of the founders of the approach, he took part in many of its transformations, as well as in a collective closure and relaunch of the project. However, “Latour” is sometimes a name designating a particular intellectual, sometimes denotes the Paris school of ANT, and is sometimes a reference to a network of research projects, or even the whole actor-network approach. His name conceals differences between these four senses and provides permanent shifts from one to another. Latour’s changeability draws the attention of critics and readers, generating new interpretations of his work. One classic example is the polemic between Bruno Latour and David Bloor, a leader of the Edinburgh school of sociology of scientific knowledge. Their clash is an important event that largely defined which theoretical style would dominate in the field of science and technology studies.
The expansion of ANT across various disciplinary boundaries is discussed in the article through Graham Harman’s proposal to rethink Latour theory in philosophy, connecting the actor-network approach with flat ontologies. This topic is discussed in the third issue (Vol. 27 # 3 2017). This article offers a short description of flat ontologies and highlights the specificity of ANT reception. It finishes with a discussion of the empirical application of the theory, accompanied by commentary on the transformations of vocabulary and of the approach itself.
e article is devoted to the Cosmographia written by the French poet and philoso- pher Bernard Silvestris shortly a er 1140, probably at Tours. is prosimetrum, by its content and form, is linked to the School of Chartres. It develops the Christian cosmogony and cosmology in mytho-poetic terms. Both the introduction of poe- try into a philosophical treatise and the use of elastic poetical formulas in order to give subjective emotions—fear, hope, hesitation—an appearance of philosophical objectivity led to great discoveries in literature and thought. In this, Bernard Silves- tris is no doubt representative of a great literary and philosophical tradition of the twel h-century Renaissance. The author uses a literary form that was well known in the Middle Ages: it com- bines prose and poetry and allows him to represent the most current philosophical categories and problems in the most unrestrained and suggestive form available in his time. Even his prose is rhythmicized, its poetic character gives it the necessary degree of polyvalence. He relies on a large number of ancient and medieval autho- ritative texts, from the Timaeus and hermetic Asclepius to Macrobius, Martianus Capella, and Arabic astrology. He is well-acquainted with the exegetical approaches towards antique classics developed by the Chartres masters, since he, a teacher of grammar, also commented on the Eneide at school. But his achievement is his own; his use of classics is so unconstrained that we have to deal with the most original cosmology of his time. e second part of the article presents the rst poetic transla- tion of chapter III of the rst book, Megacosmus, which, in elegiac dystichs, creates a laconic encyclopaedia of the universe.
The article is devoted to the apology of Joseph Stalin and Stalinism in a number of post-Soviet literature textbooks. Their authors had a generally positive assessment of Stalin’s role, not only as the head of the Soviet state, but also as the “modera- tor” of the literary process in the Soviet Union. Stalin’s personal evaluation of con- crete writers and their literary efforts - as well as, to some degree, the attitudes of these authors towards this Father of Nations - became an important factor in theirinclusion into the classroom canon of textbooks or, on the contrary, discredited and excluded them from it. The authors of these books carefully selected and reinter- preted the facts to emphasize Stalin’s exceptional importance for the development of 20th century Russian literature. Thus, Stalin appeared as the most important fig-ure of the literary process of the Soviet period, and the single method of Soviet liter- ature which was being approved during his reign - “socialist realism” - as a natural extension and embodiment of humanistic traditions of Russian literary classics.In Soviet school textbooks, there is an attempt to create a concept of the history of the 20th century Russian literature on the ideological basis of the late Soviet “soil- bound” conservatism, and to conceptualize Stalinism as the natural continuation of pre-revolutionary political-ideological conservatism. Thus, the school subject “lit- erature” is used as an ideological tool to indoctrinate the younger generation witha “national-patriotic” spirit. Moreover, this ideological line persisted in textbooks throughout the 1990s and 2000s with almost no adjustment, while their distribution was preferentially maintained by government agencies.
In this paper, I propose a hypothesis about possible audience responses to the Matthew Weiner’s TV show Mad Men. In particular, I focus on several types of visual pleasure and model two readings of the show, a progressionist one and a critical one. The progressionist reading consists in regarding Mad Men as a source of criticism of certain social norms specific to the American society of the 60s and overcome by the 2000s. The critical reading sees in the show attacks on both norms of the 60s and of the 2000s. I verify this hypothesis through the close reading of several scenes that touch upon issues of gender, class, and environment.
In this paper, I propose a theoretical model of the audience reaction on the Matthew Weiner’s TV show Mad Men. It specifies four kinds of visual pleasure and offers two testable implications. First, under progressivism approach the viewer takes the show as a source of criticism of certain social norms specific to the American society of the 60s overcome by the 2000s. Second, under critical approach the viewer interprets the show as the attack on both norms of the 60s and of the 2000s. I test these approaches by analyzing a number of scenes that involve issues of gender, class, and environment. I find that the second approach is more plausible because both the filmmaker and the viewer belongs to the same epoch.
This study examines Eric Voegelin’s political philosophy as political theology and to both Christianity and classical philosophy, and can be identified as transcendent experience. When ignoring this describes it as a possibly way to reconceptualize modernity as philosophical category. In his works, Voegelin traces the relationship between religious and political spheres. This relationship is reflected through in historical continuity and in the transformation of symbols that modern political ideologies have generally utilized for selfinterpretation. These symbols include hierarchy, ecclesia, the apocalypse, etc. Since these symbols have come under the influence of secularization and are embedded in human history, they have acquired sacred characteristics. Voegelin has developed a highly sophisticated conceptual framework for analyzing this process. He stresses the deep and permanent values which can be traced experience, modern political theory empties itself of meaning. Voegelin describes this phenomenon as “gnosticism.” The gnostic worldview is characterized by a break with its origins. Within it, people did not create the world, but can partake in the mystery that is being (Voegelin called this “metaxy”). To Voegelin, reason itself needs to be recovered in order to revitalize the public realm. From this position, he engaged in today’s discourse concerning postmodernism and post-secularity. Moreover, the main point Voegelin insisted upon, the fact that reason (including political reason) is inseparable from orientation towards the transcendent. This perspective, labeled by the authors as “political theology,” could extend the epistemological horizon of post-secular and postmodern concepts.
The article briefly describes the evolution of views on the phenomenon of doubleness – since prehistoric times and until its reinterpretation by the Romantics – and examines a cultural-historical connection between the protagonist of Shakespearean tragedy “Hamlet” and his prototype found in “Gesta Danorum” by Saxo Grammaticus. Contrary to existing tradition, which recognizes doubleness only within a single work, the author argues that doubles may be characters from different works connected by their cultural kinship and similarity in their missions. The first part of the article compares the personalities of these two characters, and demonstrates the ambiguity of Amleth that is often overlooked by scholars. Having remade an ancient story of Amleth, Shakespeare transformed the personality of the main character, but did not change the basis of the plot, without which the narration would make no sense. In the second part of the research, the author analyzes the dualism of Amleth, who combines traits of a culture hero and a trickster. Amleth embodies this most ancient type of doubleness, of course, not in its original form, as he is not a cave man, but a man of civilization, however primitive it may be. In the third part of the article, Hamlet’s inner struggle is presented in the context of a contradiction between his conscious humanistic personality and a subconscious “shadow” which demands Prince of Denmark follow the norms of archaic heroism. In this connection, the personality of Amleth should be acknowledged not as a mere layer of Hamlet’s personality, but as its basis, its “cultural unconscious”. On the grounds of the “functional unity” of the characters, as well as their belonging to the “world of the heroic”, although the interpretations of latter being different, it is concluded that Hamlet and Amleth are “doubles-twins”.