History begins in a struggle producing two figures, Master and Slave. It ends in a “universal and homogeneous state”, an Empire. Revolution with its inevitable terror is the central point in this history. Kojève himself had experienced the Russian revolution and Civil War; in 1920 he left Russia for Germany, where till the end of 1923 he had witnessed the same strife between the “left” and the “right”. This experience is the basis of his view of history, his interpretation of the path from Mastery and Slavery to the figure of the Citizen, to universal recognition. The French revolution with the Jacobins’ terror and Napoleon’s Empire represent for him the model by which to understand not only the revolutions of the twentieth century, but of the entire course of history.
The article provides a comparison of two intellectual accounts of experiences in the First World War – From the Letters of an Artillery Ensign (1918) by the Russian philosopher and writer Fjodor Stepun and The Storm of Steel (1920) by the German essayist Ernst Jünger. The aim of this article is to reveal similarities and differences between “optics” of Jünger and Stepun who are reporting one and the same event but deal with two different images of the Great War.
In the course of his collaboration with GAKhN, whose task was to create a systemic ‘scientific’ theory of art, Losev undertook a systematic interpretation of German classical aesthetics as the historical presupposition for his own Christian, Platonist doctrine of art conceived as a dialectical universe comprising totalizing connections at all levels. This interpretation was concealed in a masterful way within the ‘Commentaries’ to Dialektika khudozˇestvennoj formy. Independently of the significant results achieved by this revival of the classical tradition, Losev’s mythologized theory of art called forth a critical reaction on the part of his GAKhN colleagues and brought to light some of the broader theoretical attitudes present among GAKhN’s collaborators.
The idea for this collection of essays originated from a rare and friendly correspondence with Edward Swiderski—a widely talented man of astounding erudition. Once, while discussing a procedural issue in one of our letters, the name of Merab Mamardashvili suddenly cropped up. Edward ironically inquired, “are they still merely singing his praises in Russia, or are there those who are taking a more critical approach?” My lengthy answer concluded with an unexpected proposal: “why don’t we prepare a separate issue in which authors of different views and from different schools of thought are included, so that we can all share our visions of Mamardashvili’s legacy?” This idea proved to be decisive. I immediately began to gather a team of authors, discussed the paper topics and the focus, and finally, after a year of intensive work, this issue, dedicated to the philosophical legacy of Merab Mamardashvili, is now ready. The new editor of the journal, Marina Bykova, has not only provided us with invaluable editorial assistance but has also shown genuine friendship while preparing the issue.
This article examines the internationalization of scientific and scholarly
communication in the period before World War I, taking philosophy as an example.
In the first part of the article, several general trends in internationalization during the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries are examined. This includes the importance of
international experience for Russia’s policies today towards science and education.
The main part of this article is devoted to the concept of the ‘‘international argument’’
and provides an analysis of three types of appeal to the international community:
the pragmatic, the reputational, and the communicative. The increasing
importance of international communication during this period is shown on the basis
of examples drawn from German philosophical discussions that took place between
the first third and the end of the nineteenth century (the case of Friedrich Eduard
Beneke and Hermann Ebbinghaus). The last part of the article examines the impact
on German science and philosophy of the cessation of international communication
during World War I.
This interview was held in March 2015 during the visit of Sergey Sergeevich Horujy to the Institute of Human Sciences in Vienna. It was conducted by Kristina Stoeckl and Alexander Michailowski.
The author conducts a comparative analysis of the Russian Revolution developed by two prominent social-political thinkers of Germany and Russia in the early twentieth century—Max Weber and Peter Struve. The article focuses on their respective interpretations of the causes, course, and consequences of the Revolution as determined by their political ideals, i.e. a speciﬁc combination of nationalism and liberalism. The author pays special attention to Weber’s and Struve’s perception of the Russian Revolution, which, albeit for different reasons, was rejected by both thinkers.
The article reconstructs an original concept of myth developed by Mikhail Lifshits. He invented the term ‘‘logomythia’’, as the ‘‘art of discrimination’’, to show the ambivalent nature of creative work, where archaic myth dies as a historical nonsense and resurrects as a human meaning. Logomythia demonstrates the overcoming of the irrational element in the life of societies by linking it to the rational or meaningful content of artistic images. And, on the other hand, the concept contains more than a hint of the crisis of rationalism in the twentieth century which destroyed the harmony of man with nature.
In the article Mikhail Lifshitz’s interpretation of the scholarly work of the Italian philosopher Giambattista Vico is analyzed against the background of other Soviet interpretations. M. Lifshitz authored the introductory article for the first complete translation of Vico’s “Scienza Nuova” in 1940. In the second half of the 1930s the interest to Vico’s “historical theory of knowledge” was important for the struggle against so-called “vulgar sociology” in the field of esthetics and literary critics. Besides, Vico’s theory of the “historical cycle” was close to the interests M. Lifshitz and G. Lukács and to their circle in Stalin-time Moscow. This interest was connected with discussions about preservation of the revolutionary impulse under conditions of the state socialism. However, such interpretation of Vico (he being considered only as predecessor of Hegel’s and Marx’s philosophy of history) restricted to a wide spectrum of his scholarly work. Particularly M., as an opponent of social-constructivism, ignored Vico’s well-known doctrine of verum factum.
A reply on the contemporary Russian philosophy, it's development in last 25 years.
This article considers the evolution of the Russian university system during the First World War. Most of the imperial period, until the end of 1916, thanks to the liberal policy of the Minister of People’s Education, Pavel Nikolayevič Ignat’ev, a reformist course was implemented (drafting of a new statute, increasing the autonomy of universities). Particularly important and promising was the expansion of universities’ network and opening of new universities in Rostov-on-Don, Perm, as well as the expansion of Saratov and Tomsk universities. In 1917 Ministers of Education of the Provisional Government (A. Manuilov, S. Oldenburg, S. Salazkin) also followed the Ignat’ev’s liberal course received support with the bottom-up initiatives (introduction of regular institution of associate professors, attracting of younger lecturers to the university management). Paradoxically, for the university system the result of crisis which lasted through the war period and the beginning of the revolution marked the democratization of management and the expansion of the students’ enrollment and the number of universities.
Battles of the First World War were accompanied by what was the first full-scale war of words in European history. It was aimed at influencing the public opinion abroad as well as at mobilizing the population at home. Leading intellectuals, including famous scholars, participated in propaganda campaigns waged by the belligerent nations. This text focuses on the discussions between philosophers involved in the international conflict.
Abstract The impact of Hegelian philosophy on Belinskij’s thinking and especially on his self-understanding did not end with his well-known and ostentatious anti-Hegelian tirades. By focusing on Belinskij’s tormented early years in Petersburg, after he had supposedly reneged on his ‘‘reconciliation with reality,’’ this paper will attempt to show how the continued conceptual evolution of Belinskij’s Hegelian thinking was intimately interrelated with his personal striving for selfrealization. Ultimately, Hegelian ideas not only allowed Belinskij to affirm a unique sense of self as the subject of a not-yet-world-historical nation, they also served as the crucial theoretical framework that would finally allow Belinskij to conceptualize the essential, organic connection between Russian literature and Russian life, as evidenced in his monumental eleven-part study on Pushkin.
The article offers an analysis of party cadres’ conceptualization of culture that provided the basis for the creation of the state monopoly on cultural production of the young Soviet regime in the early 1920’s.
The First World War forced the Russian intelligentsia to rethink its values—values that had been constructed in the 19th century. Distancing itself from pacifism and cultural relativism, it began to search for a moral meaning to the war that broke out in 1914—i.e. to defend the war as morally right and having a higher spiritual purpose. Russian philosophers were central to these debates, as they tried to interpret the war, and the relationship between war and peace, from a metaphysical point of view. The paper will look at philosophical, ethical and religious aspects of these debates, and some of the philosophers who participated in them.
In this article I analyze several of Merab Mamardashvili’s ideas about the «invisible» and «unknowable» nature of consciousness, as conveyed by the term «non-objectifying». The main points at issue here are: (1) the idea of the fundamental non-objective nature of consciousness, and (2) the impossibility of constructing a naturalist ontology that would take the experience of consciousness into account. The term non-objectiveness assumes not only the non-physicality of consciousness, but also the logical impossibility of positively and affirmatively apprehending consciousness in terms of standard subject-object determinations. Consciousness is not an object; moreover, consciousness cannot “appear”, though it allows things and the world to appear. In the article, I show how Mamardashvili dedicated a significant amount of his philosophical work toward conveying this intuition. This intuition, in turn, is predicated on the fact that the paradoxical nature of consciousness can be considered in terms of the idea of “transcendentality.” With this in mind, I offer an interpretation of the concept of the transcendental, predicated on a justification in which I apply the concept to consciousness. I also show how Mamardashvili’s philosophical method can be viewed as a special form of transcendentalism, in which Mamardashvili elaborated an authorial stance that was both unique to his philosophical outlook and which he combined with the traditional ideas of this philosophical position.In this article I analyze several of Merab Mamardashvili’s ideas about the «invisible» and «unknowable» nature of consciousness, as conveyed by the term «non-objectifying». The main points at issue here are: (1) the idea of the fundamental non-objective nature of consciousness, and (2) the impossibility of constructing a naturalist ontology that would take the experience of consciousness into account. The term non-objectiveness assumes not only the non-physicality of consciousness, but also the logical impossibility of positively and affirmatively apprehending consciousness in terms of standard subject-object determinations. Consciousness is not an object; moreover, consciousness cannot “appear”, though it allows things and the world to appear. In the article, I show how Mamardashvili dedicated a significant amount of his philosophical work toward conveying this intuition. This intuition, in turn, is predicated on the fact that the paradoxical nature of consciousness can be considered in terms of the idea of “transcendentality.” With this in mind, I offer an interpretation of the concept of the transcendental, predicated on a justification in which I apply the concept to consciousness. I also show how Mamardashvili’s philosophical method can be viewed as a special form of transcendentalism, in which Mamardashvili elaborated an authorial stance that was both unique to his philosophical outlook and which he combined with the traditional ideas of this philosophical position.
During the First World War the radical nationalist sentiments were widespread in different European countries involved in military activities, including the Russian Empire. In Russia this rise united the features of Russian ethnonationalism and imperial enthusiasm. The Russian philosopher Vladimir Ern (1882–1917) in his article “From Kant to Krupp” (1914) attempted “to ground” the hostility between Russia and its allies, on the one hand, and Germany, on the other hand. This attempt turned Ern’s article into one of the earliest manifestoes of cultural racism in Russia, maybe the very first one. Discussing this article in the context of other works by Ern of 1910–1917, one can see that Ern applied Friedrich Nietzsche’s genealogical method for the political interpretation of “the problem of technology” causing the aggressive approach to the human’s environment. Nevertheless, Ern’s cultural racism and aggressive rhetoric blocked further development and even reception of his methodological innovations. The psychological compensatory pragmatic of his rhetoric seems to resemble the analogical function of rigid opposition between “Russia” and “West” in speeches of contemporary Russia’s official ideologues.