The article is a historiographical and theoretical overview of the basic concepts of the genesis of ancient Greek philosophy in the Russian and Soviet philosophical literature 19–20th centuries. The author recalls that the first information about the ancient world appeared in Russia in the 10th century, and indicates the scientific study of ancient Greek philosophy in Russia began only in the 19th century. One of the first original research in this area belonged to the O. Novitsky. He put forward the idea of the development of Greek philosophy from mythology and religion. This concept was developed to creatively S. Trubetskoy. He argued that the philosophy of the Greeks is a special phase of their religious ideas.
The class approach has dominated in the Soviet history of philosophy, and it required to consider the philosophy of the ancient Greeks as a direct reflection of the contemporary level of development of the productive forces. Concepts of philosophy genesis conformed with the requirements of the political situation. Thus, the epistemogeneous concept corresponded to the Communist Party course to struggle against religious vestiges in Soviet society and apologetics myth in a bourgeois political thought. According to this concept philosophy arose from science as opposed to religion and the fight against it. And hypothesis of oriental responsible policy of rapprochement with the countries of the Third World and criticism of eurocentrism. This concept is emphasized oriental influences on Greek philosophy.
In the late 1950s – early 1960s, there is a number of original concepts, operating Marxist methodology as a lively and plastic material. One of the greatest historians of philosophy was A.F. Losev, who created a distinctive methodology for the study of the genesis of philosophy. Interesting theory offered J.E. Golosovker, A.N. Chanyshev, F.C. Kessidy and other scientists. Philosophical debates have become more vivid character and the theoretical value.
The author emphasizes that the conflicting approaches to the problem of the origin of ancient Greek philosophy are attempts to answer the questions of profound character. The debate between supporters of autochthonous and Oriental hypotheses about external sources of Greek philosophy is designed to answer the question: “how and where philosophy emerged?” The question “from what is philosophy emerged?” defined the content of the controversy between the adherents mythogeneous and epistemogeneous concepts concerning the spiritual sources of philosophy. And finally, the question of “how and why philosophy emerged?” accompanied by discussions about social, ontological and other conditions of the emergence of philosophy.
The author argues that the last point in this debate is unlikely to be delivered, because to find the solution to the problem of the genesis of philosophy – it is important to solve the question of philosophy: what is philosophy?
Russian philosophy of the ﬁ rst half of the 20-th century is usually spoken about as being an “aborted ﬂ ight”. The coherent space of thought and communication of Russian philosophers fell apart. Therefore one of the most topical problems of today's philosophy is the restoration of the continuity of it's traditions that were established at the turn of the 19th and the 20th centuries. An intensive work in this direction began in 1990s. Today this work goes on, particularly as part of the preparation of the series “The philosophy of Russia of the 1st half of the 20th century”. The aim of this round-table conference is to discuss the research directions, that have recently been formed, and that continue the traditions of Russian intellectual culture, and to further aid the formation of the whole culture-historical image of Russian philosophy as a polyphonic phenomenon in the diversity of modern research contexts.
The article actualizes the method of historical-philosophical reconstruction, that was applied during the preparation process for publication of archival materials of the second part of the fundamental Gustav Shpet’s work, named "History as a problem of logic". This publication continues the already formed in the last decades practice of introduction into scientific circulation of Russian philosophers’ philosophical texts, previously either available in a limited or distorted statute, or only available to a limited number of persons, who had direct access to archive materials. The author believes that today we can confidently assert that we are talking about the introduction to the philosophical work of manuscripts as special elements of modern social world, and not just about archival republication as a tribute to the past. Moreover, in this case we face the situation of the reconstruction, that restores and reconstructs the context and contents of the unpublished work. The article demonstrates how the reconstruction and commenting allow to actualize the texts of Russian philosophers of the early XXth, and thus to focus the specifics of the modern Russian philosophical tradition. The author also traces the pathway of the intellectual movements of G. Shpet in the frameworks of the problem of historical knowledge, demonstrating the relevance of his logical and methodological searches.
The main issue of the paper is the foundations of Indian epistemology and logic foremost their categorical apparatus. We examine two linguistic determinations of that apparatus: an influence of the features of language (sa§skçta) and an influence of the theory of language (vyаkaraхa). The author demonstrates textual evidences of an influence of grammar on Buddhist epistemology and logic (pramахavаda) via doctrine of nyаya, which was expressed in " Nyаya-såtra" by Gotama and in the commentary on it by Vаtsyаyana. Nyаya epistemology included categorization of the process of knowing by Gotama which was made with the help of the system of kаraka by Pахini. Buddhists began to use that categorization for epistemological and logical discussions. Dignāga himself also borrowed classification of varieties of words from Pataхjali's Mahаbhaùya on Pахini's Aùсаdhyаyã. The process of designation of the results of perception was regarded in the Yogacаra's epistemology as a kind of mental construction - kalpanа. Those definitions of kalpanа, which we find in Yogacаra's texts, find out the lack of coincidence in their understanding of status of logic. Dignāga saw that logic could be separate from epistemology and ontology, that logic was a description of third reality reality of consciousness. He also thought that description was a product of conventional verbal practice. The definitions of kalpanа by Dharmakãrti and Dharmottara were more careful in the sense of understanding of status of logic. They still considered anumаnavаda as a part of pramахavаda. The kinds of mental constructions which were named by yogacārins (pratãtiþ the image as a result of perception, vidhi perceptual judgment and anumаna inference), were much nearer to modern logical forms as the elements of structure of knowing mind than the categories of the epistemologies of Indian realists.
The article discusses the original concept of myth, created by the Soviet philosopher aesthetician Mikhail Lifshits, presented in the comparison with many classical and modern theories of myth. The logic of myth, called Logomythia, is analyzed not only from the standpoint of Marxism, but also resting on the traditions of the Western and Russian Enlightenment, and on Levi-Strauss’s ideas. The overriding feature of myth, from his point of view, is not practice and labour, but the ambivalent, dual principle, manifested in art, where archaic myth dies as historical nonsense and is resurrected as a human sense.
The correspondence of two prominent classical philologists – A.F. Losev (1893–1988) and his German colleague Bruno Snell (1896–1986) – introduces into scientific circulation for the first time. This correspondence relates to the 1959–1960 years and arose in connection with the publication of the “Lexicon of early Greek epos” (“Lexicon des frühgriechischen Epos”), edited by B. Snell. Printed in German in 1962 Losev’s review about the first 3 issues of this “Lexicon” published in Russian also for the first time. A.F. Losev’s letters to B. Snell are printed after typewritten originals from the Bavarian state library: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek; Nachlass Bruno Snell / B. Korrespondenz. Signatur: Ana 490. B. IV. Lossew, Alexis. B. Snell’s letters to A.F. Losev printed after typewritten originals of personal Losev’s archive (copies: Brief von Bruno Snell an Alexis Lossew // Bayerische Staatsbibliothek; Nachlass Bruno Snell / B. Korrespondenz. Signatur: Ana 490. B.II). Translation of Losev’s review about “Lexicon of early Greek epos” (“Lexicon des frühgriechischen Epos”) is done by publication: Deutsche Literaturzeitung. Jahrgang 83, Heft 2 – Februar 1962.S. 113–117.