The article is a statement of lecture, which was hold on the Radio Free Berlin (Sender Freies Berlin) in 1983. It was published in the collection of Marquards’ papers “Skepticism and agreement” (Skepsis und Zustimmung). The articles of this collection specify and evolve the position, which was fist articulated in the work “Farewell to Matters of Principle” (Abschied vom Prinzipiellen). The lecture “In Defense of the Power Solitude” is addressed to a broad audience. Therefore the author doesn’t indicate his main opponents. Nevertheless, there is a polemic with Jürgen Habermas theory of communicative action and Theodor Adorno critical theory. In contrast to the critical theory the author states, that trouble of modernity isn’t the solitude, but the lack of capability to the solitude.
In the first part of the article the author deals with the sociocultural premises, because of which solitude becomes inevitable phenomena of modernity. In the second part he describes, how modern citizens try to avoid the solitude, and points out, that these attempts could produce opposite results. The third part presents detailed argumentation for the statement, according to which it is useless to try to avoid solitude. On the contrary, it should be accepted, at least as much as it helps to make a distance, which is necessary for a sober assessment of reality. This conclusion is reflected in the fourth, final part, where the author indicates the phenomena, which couldn’t save from the solitude, but contribute to the formation of the culture of capability to the solitude.
The article examines the intellectual biography and views of the greatest German polemist and philosopher of the second part of XX century, Odo Marquard. From a historical philosophical point of view, Marquard is considered as the member of Joachim Ritter’s school, who is mostly known as initiator and editor-in-chief of the fundamental encyclopedic “Historical dictionary of philosophy” (Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie (1971-2007)). Marquard himself points out that his reception of Ritter’s philosophy was strongly influenced by the protests of 1968. His affirmative position to the modern world is partly the consequence of these political events. Heretofore Marquard was deeply interested in Frankfurt school and wrote sarcastic epigrams about Ritter’s philosophy. But after 1968 Marquard debates with the theories of Theodor Adorno and Jürgen Habermas and Ritter’s philosophy of diremption (Entzweiung) becomes the object of his reflection and partly the polemical weapon against the attempts to question the basics of liberal-democratic society of postwar West Germany.
From a political point of view, Marquard's philosophy is often considered as the philosophy of liberal conservatism. Marquard points out, that the history of formation of liberal institutes has great importance for modernity itself. This emphasis can be explained historically. Marquard belongs to the generation, which was called by Helmut Schelsky “skeptical generation”. This generation went through the radical historical breaks. The extreme politicization of everyday life in national socialism period, the second World War, the collapse of third Reich, the experience of radical disorientation form his skeptical position, which distance itself from any ideology, from any assertion, which pretends to be the absolutely truth. According to Marquard, the aim of skeptic is not to search the theory, which could “reconcile” the conflict among different points of view, but to keep this conflict. In other words, the aim is to keep the principle of separation of powers, where the powers are considered not only as the political institutions, but also as assertion, theories, conceptions, which could influence the position of individual. The study was implemented in the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) in 2016.
The present article traces the origins and forms of aggressive rhetoric in the Soviet literary criticism of the 1920s, using the example of the debates surrounding the Len- ingrad branch of the Russian Formalist School. e discussions around this research circle can be traced to the destructive experience of revolution and civil war, and the shi from conventional forms of debate to the abuse and annihilation of opponents, transforming the latter practices into the new mainstream. e discussion as such becomes a race for power, or a straight-up competition between political groups. In turn, literary criticism also starts reproducing the repressive methods of the victor. e so-called “formalists” represent the most prominent example of this process, as they were sentenced to annihilation as pure ideological enemies of the new hegem- onic class — both in a political and cultural sense.
The contrast dualism that characterizes the opposition between ‘us’ and ‘them’ in Russian culture to the present day became visible during that time, as the trium- phant class was fundamentally unwilling to compromise with the defeated. e Bol- sheviks were not feeling magnanimous a er the victory of the October revolution. eir strategy was to cultivate hatred, pitting di erent groups against each other under the banner of class struggle in order to further strip and/or remove any phe- nomena diverging from the established way forward. e primary motivation for the crackdown through terror was civil war. Subsequently, it was replaced by the require- ment for special vigilance during the temporary resurgence of the bourgeoisie in the period of New Economic Policy (NEP). e conceptualization of the NEP was not only an economic and industrial, but also inevitably a cultural matter, and the prole- tariat simply had to feel threatened by the surviving oppressors whose consciousness remained the same as before the revolution. Ultimately, the announced and long- awaited rejection of the NEP and its “restorative” culture legitimized a new round of aggressive rhetoric that reinforced the internal crisis of the Soviet “poputchiks” (pri- marily discriminated intelligentsia) and allowed to put an end to them on the cusp of the 1920s and 1930s.
The article deals with the transformations in the comprehension of the university tradition in Soviet and Post-Soviet era.
To stop understanding “Power” through the “State”: Gouvernementalité, Governmentality Studies, and the fate of Michel Foucault’s analytics of power in Russian translations
Gouvernementalité is a neologism introduced by Michel Foucault in 1978. Today, with its English version “governmentality”, it has become one of the key concepts of social sciences.
This term is used to represent a new recherche perspective developed by Foucault, to understand and analyze the phenomenon of "power" or, more specifically, various types of power relations typical for different cultures and political communities. In the past several decades, this perspective has provided methodological basis for an emerging interdisciplinary research field referred to, in English-language social sciences, as Governmentality Studies. Among several aspects of this approach is a novel outlook on the genealogy and specific features of modern societies and modern state, which no longer conceptualizes "power" through the "state", in contrast to traditional paradigms of political philosophy. At the same time, contemporary social science in Russia has been largely deprived of an opportunity to use the conceptual instruments and research methods offered by Foucault; and, among the key barriers to this is the problem of translation.
This paper aim to: 1. Summarize Foucault’s critical analytical approach to power, referred to by the concept of governmentality; 2. Compare Foucauldian analytics of power to traditional paradigms in political philosophy; 3. Highlight how the concept of governmentality is used over the years in Foucault’s works dealing with power relations and the topic of ethical subject; 4. Describe the peculiarity of the early period of Governmentality Studies in English-speaking social sciences; 5. Demonstrate that current Russian translations of Foucault’s primary texts incorporating the term gouvernementalité are not merely imprecise, but display what the French call “contresens” -- interpretations that directly contradict the essence of the original. As a corpus, the available translations do not convey meaning, but rather close off the Foucauldian conceptual and exploratory landscape for the Russian-speaking world.
This article gives a survey of the contemporary debates on the problem of free will and discusses some of the metaphysical assumptions underlying these debates. The first part of the paper provides a critical overview of the most influential positions on the problem of freedom and determinism: compatibilism, libertarianism and hard incompatibilism. It discusses the limitations of G.E. Moore’s hypothetical analysis of the ability to do otherwise and the problems of the psychological accounts of free action in contemporary compatibilism. It briefly examines contemporary libertarian theories of free will by criticizing the agent-causal theories of freedom, and by showing the innovative character of R. Kane’s theory of Ultimate Responsibility. Hard incompatibilism is criticized because of its methodological deficiencies in exploring the prospects of living without freedom of will.
The second part of the paper is devoted to the analysis of the metaphysical assumptions behind these debates. First, it criticizes the foundations of the thesis that causal determinism actually obtains in our world. It argues that causal determinism is not a plausible thesis both in its “objective” and in its “subjective” versions. Second, it discusses some of the motivating ideas for the development of libertarian accounts of free will. Nonstandard libertarian approaches to free will are proposed in order to uncover these motivating ideas. This helps to explain the structural similarities between libertarianism and compatibilism and to show “the dogma of control” ruling in the contemporary debates about freedom.
This paper focuses on debates in contemporary philosophy and on the productiveness of these debates. The article brings forth two main theses: firstly, debates in philosophy quickly lead to the elimination of poorly substantiated positions and unfounded research programs; secondly, the coexistence of fundamentally incompatible philosophical programs stimulates their development—that is, incompatibility brings about productive professional competition in philosophy. To substantiate these claims the author analyzes two notorious debates of the late 19th and early 20th century: Hermann Ebbinghaus’s critique of Wilhelm Dilthey’s descriptive psychology, and Moritz Schlick’s one-way discussion of the phenomenological project and Edmund Husserl’s works.
Where conspiracy theory comes from? It is a matter of concern for those who believe in them and those who are highly skeptical. Whether academic studies can explain the origin of this phenomenon? Which questions do the researchers of this phenomenon raise in contemporary situation and how they attempt to solve them?
Thomas Hobbes was among the first political thinkers of modernity, who, relying on his analysis of the Civil War in England, arrived to the conclusion that the sovereign power should implement through its representatives a special educational policy for the nobility and lower classes, designed to inspire in them allegiance to the state. Among the main lines of this policy, Hobbes saw the supervision over the institutions of knowledge by sovereign power in order to prevent them from spreading through society the opinions that are contrary to the authority of the sovereign. An equally important aspect of Hobbes's educational policy is the control of secular sovereignty over ecclesiastical institutions to ensure their loyalty to the sovereign. Hobbes lays a special emphasis in this policy to English universities. In his historical treatise Behemoth, or the Long Parliament Hobbes puts the lion's share of the blame for the English Civil War on the universities, which, in his words, “have been to this nation, as the wooden horse was for the Trojans”. That is why the new sovereign power, which won the Civil War, had to start creating conditions for civil peace with the reform of universities, which were “the coar of rebellion”. Hobbes considered it absolutely necessary to lay as the foundation of this reform the political doctrine of the secular sovereign’s unlimited power described by him in detail in Leviathan. According to Hobbes, such an educational policy was absolutely essential for the education of citizens loyal to the sovereign power for the sake of civil peace preservation in England.
In his article Alexander Pavlov investigates a phenomenon of the porno-industry called ‘porno chic’, emphasizing American cinema of the 1970s. His hypothesis is that porno chic is an attempt to present pornography as high art, and analyzes crucial fi lms of this movement, pointing out changes that occurred to the notion in time, and, by pointing out its weaknesses he shows why this genre didn’t take a signifi cant place among other phenomena of high and mass culture.