This study deals with two strategies of approaching the early modern epistemology of Gesteswissenschaften, the first of which sees in them the anticipation of historicism in the 19th - early 20th centuries, and the second – a precedent for turn to rhetoric and contingency, similar to the rhetorical turn in some areas of the theory of humanities in the mid-20th century. The starting point of the study is Benedetto Croce's view of the philosophy of the Neapolitan philosopher Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) as a prelude to romanticism ("the nineteenth century in nuce"; "il romanticismo fu vichiano"): Croce’s conception is considered as a representative sample of the presentist appropriation of the Baroque civil science. This concept is contrasted with the theoretical historiography of the early modern times, which seeks in the “sciences of contingency” a resource of the renewal of the topical theory of humanities: a special emphasis is placed on Nancy S. Struever’s modal rhetoric. It is demonstrated that this latter strategy contributed to free the philosophy of the Neapolitan thinker from anachronistic readings in the vein of romanticism and to replace it in its own time.
This article presents methodological foundations for the history of Russian political languages. Authors draw on the key insights of the Cambridge school of intellectual history while highlighting some new methodological moves based on applying this approach to the studies of the Russian history. The article provides definitions of the key methodological concepts and reviews selected illustrative cases from the Russian and Western history. In general the history of political philosophy in this perspective combines two imperatives: (a) privileged attention to available (sub)languages and idioms of the given period; (b) analysis of authors’ intentions and rhetoric moves in the historical context, framed by linguistic conventions and discourses of other participants in the debate. While applying this methodology to the Russian past (and present) we have identified several relevant issues which were mostly taken for granted by the main founders of the Cambridge school: the degree of familiarity and trust of the ruling elites with the written tradition of the political philosophy; institutions of public debate; and, finally, regimes of publicity structuring political discussions.
: The article is dedicated to Juan III (1822–1887), the Carlist pretender to the Spanish throne in 1861-1868, who opposed himself to the Carlist «mainstream» by expanding the ideological framework of this movement to the left up to liberalism. As a liberal, Juan III becomes an exponent of the trend (left-wing bias within Carlist conservatism) which originates from Carlist general R. Maroto Yserns‘ activities who signed in 1839 the peace of Vergara with the Isabelites and expresses in Carlos VI‘s attempts to find an agreement between the two branches of the Spanish Bourbons in the form of a dynastic marriage with Isabel II. The article analyzes the failures of Juan III as a political practitioner who sought to combine in his activities the desire to integrate himself into the New— liberal-bourgeois— Order (but for that it was necessary to find agreement with the liberal-conservative wing of the «moderados» on the right and the progressives on the left) and to remain at the head of the Carlist «mainstream» which stood on the positions of right-wing conservatism. To identify the contradictions between such incompatible intentions, Juan III’s views are contrasted with — the second wife of Carlos V — Maria Teresa, Princess de Beira‘s ideas who expressed the interests of the Carlist «mainstream» on the eve of the liberal-bourgeois revolution of 1868-1874 and the third Carlist war. It is shown that the figure of Juan III — for all its irrelevance in the socio-political conditions of Spain in the XIX century — becomes a kind of herald for the modern leaders of Carlism (traditionalist and liberal conservative ones) who live and act separately from the currently marginal “right-wing faction” of Carlism which still stands on the positions of right-wing conservatism.
This paper is a review on the book “Kembridzhskaja shkola: teorija i praktika intellektual'noj istorii” (Cambridge School: theory and practice of intellectual history) published in 2018. Book was edited by Timur Atnashev, PhD in History and Civilization, senior research at ISS, RANEPA, and Mikhail Velizhev, PhD in Russian Literature, professor at School of Literary History and Theory, HSE University. The aim of the book is to analyze the methodology of Cambridge school and apply it for studying political languages in Russia. The book includes three parts. First part represents program papers of Cambridge School, the second one includes critics and replies to them from the “School’s” authors. The third part includes papers of Russian scholars who apply methodology at Russian contexts from XVII to XX centuries and develop new unit of analysis latter called “regimes of publicity”.
This paper focuses on methodological problems and perspectives. While, previous critics, despite being benevolent, concentrated on abilities of implementation the political program that is developed by authors of Cambridge School. First part of the paper is dedicated to reconstruction of methodological program provided by authors. The second part gives a reply to three critical theses which consider methodological reflection too excess, method as not systematic enough, and author’s intentions as not available for a study.
In the present article, I propose the following thesis: most of the problems related to the ethical choices in moral philosophy are false. This thesis might be illustrated with an example of the novel "Sophie's Choice" by William Styron. The main character of the novel (Sophie) faces a difficult choice being held in Auschwitz: she has to decide which of her two children to save; the other one will be sent to the gas chamber. At first sight, the question here is about ethical choices; however, there is no ethical choice in an authentic sense. We will consider four strategies to solve this problem, which provides by Kant, Hegel, Schelling and Wittgenstein. Hence, all attempts to find a philosophical solution to the problem of choosing between two valuable alternatives are hopeless. In this case, we either have to withdraw this issue from the purview of philosophy and bring it to the other fields of knowledge (e.g., evolutionary psychology explains Sophie's choice, using Darwin's theory), and to recognize the impotence of the Reason and assign the problem a regulatory status, as if it indicates the boundaries of what we can know in the field of moral philosophy.
This article demonstrates the review of the international conference Machiavelli and Guicciardini: at the origin of Early Modern historical science, which was organized with the participation of the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, The Italian Institute of Culture in Moscow, Poletayev institute for theoretical and historical studies in the humanities (IGITI), The School of General and Applied Philology (SGAP), and The School of Philosophy. The conference took place in Moscow, September 23-25, 2019. The review considers the way intellectual history interconnects with contemporary theory and methodology of history while both of them refer to Machiavelli and Guicciardini. The review shows the role of Machiavelli and Guicciardini's political context, as well as the role of ideas of the historical science`s method in the 16th-18th centuries, for this interconnection.
The article is intended to introduce the reader to the historical and polemical contexts of the seminal essay “Famine, Affluence and Morality” (1972) by Peter Singer, which appears in Russian for the first time. The authors analyze Singer’s argumentation in the perspective of the development of his views, determine the relevant historical and philosophical context of the paper, and outline the key lines of criticism of Singer’s approach. This allows us to look more closely at the problem of global poverty and the individual moral obligations of affluent agents.
In this paper, the author studies the question of whether it is ethically and epistemically acceptable to recognize such a specific kind of “mental” state as insight as to the Т. III, № ] МОРАЛЬНО ЛИ ИСПОЛЬЗОВАТЬ ИНСАЙТ… basis for a reliable judgment. For these purposes, the author analyzes the term belief. She proposes to distinguish between confidence and conviction, and on the basis of this difference to determine opinion, faith, and knowledge, which is based on the idea of Immanuel Kant. Considering the “mental” states the following questions are discussed: () can it be objectively established whether the subject is in one or another “mental” state; () whether the subject cognizes the world adequately if he is going through some or another “mental” state. In order to test the introduced distinction’s efficiency, such “mental” states as migraine and hallucinations are considered. Finally, based on the introduced distinction between confidence and conviction, the concept insight (an act of genuine thinking) is investigated. As a final point, the author comes to the conclusion that insight is sufficient evidence for the knowledge of a special kind — metaknowledge about the world (transcendental knowledge).
The article is devoted to the oversight of the Third Section of His Majesty's Own Chancellery of the private life of provincial officials in the 1820s and 1830s. The research is primarily based on documents from the archives of the Third Section, the Corps of Gendarmes and the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The recent research revealed that the secret police under Nicholas I not only looked after political opposition, but also supervised service activities of provincial officials, as well as the private life and behavior of subjects. In practice, these activities were closely intertwined. The article deals with the examples of the intervention of the Third Section in the private life of provincial officials with the main accent on the civil governors. The central theme is the case of Perm governor Kirill Tyufyaev (1777–1843). The research revealed that there was no common approach to the limits of government intervention in the private life of officials. Under Nicholas Iеhis area became the object of supervision of the secret police primarily through gendarme staff officers in provinces. Gendarmes paid particular attention to family discord and the indecent behavior. Nicholas I often personally delved into the details of such cases. The sovereign tried to avoid unnecessary publicity, but intervened when the circumstances of the private life of employees became the subject of public discussion. In this case, the home life ceased to be a private matter and could end their career. As a representative of the supreme power, the governor had no right to discredit it with his behavior.
Historicism is a term, used today in two main senses: a feature or principle of historical consciousness and an intellectual movement of the th century, depending mainly on German romanticism and developing an Historik with the clear differentiation of methods of natural sciences and historical (or cultural) sciences. This opposition was negated by the development of historical science. Social history uses a lot of methods of other social sciences. The idea of “total history” represents the epistemological aim of historians. But history is a descriptive and interpretative discipline, which uses all this methods without loosing the specific outlook or way of thinking, which was created by the historicism.