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.
The article raises for the first time the question of scientific contacts between A.F.Losev and the outstanding German classical philologist Bruno Snell (1896–1986). The analysis demonstrates that Russian thinker kept the constant interest in the works of his German colleague during half a century, since the middle of 1920-ies. Losev’s attention to the work of Snell connected with his interest to the history of ideas and concepts, most evident in his monumental “The History of Classical Aesthetics”. Losev appealed to Snell in the study of the terminology of Plato (sophia, epistēmē) and Heraclitus (ēthos, sēmainei), Proclus (aiōn) and Plotinus (sophia),the language of the Homeric Epos, its aesthetics and mythology. Both researchers attributed the emergence of the concept “historical” with the Homeric Epos and see it as the first step to Greek historical consciousness. Special attention is paid to the history of German publication Losev’s positive review (1962) about “Lexikon of early Greek epos” (“Lexikon des frühgriechischen Epos”),launched in 1955 under the editorship of B. Snell.
The article considers the Views of L. N. Tolstoy not only as a representative, but also as a accomplisher of the Enlightenment. A comparison of his philosophy with the ideas of Spinoza and Diderot made it possible to clarify some aspects of the transition to the unique Tolstoy’s religious and philosophical doctrine. The comparison of General and specific features of the three philosophers was subjected to a special analysis. Special attention is paid to the way of thinking, the relation to science and the specifics of the worldview by Tolstoy and Diderot. An important aspect is researched the contradiction between the way of thinking and the way of life of the three philosophers.
Tolstoy's transition from rational perception of life to its religious and existential bases is shown. Tolstoy gradually moves away from the idea of a natural man to the idea of a man, who living the commandments of Christ. Starting from the educational worldview, Tolstoy ended by creation of religious and philosophical doctrine, which were relevant for the 20th century.
The article is concerned with the notions of technology in essays of Ernst and Friedrich Georg Jünger. The special problem of the connection between technology and freedom is discussed in the broader context of the criticism of culture and technocracy discussion in the German intellectual history of the first half of the 20th century.
This important new book offers the first full-length interpretation of the thought of Martin Heidegger with respect to irony. In a radical reading of Heidegger's major works (from Being and Time through the ‘Rector's Address' and the ‘Letter on Humanism' to ‘The Origin of the Work of Art' and the Spiegel interview), Andrew Haas does not claim that Heidegger is simply being ironic. Rather he argues that Heidegger's writings make such an interpretation possible - perhaps even necessary.
Heidegger begins Being and Time with a quote from Plato, a thinker famous for his insistence upon Socratic irony. The Irony of Heidegger takes seriously the apparently curious decision to introduce the threat of irony even as philosophy begins in earnest to raise the question of the meaning of being. Through a detailed and thorough reading of Heidegger's major texts and the fundamental questions they raise, Haas reveals that one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century can be read with as much irony as earnestness. The Irony of Heidegger attempts to show that the essence of this irony lies in uncertainty, and that the entire project of onto-heno-chrono-phenomenology, therefore needs to be called into question.