Яков Эммануилович Голосовкер
The author of the article appeals to the book written by Y. E. Golosovker “Dostoevsky and Kant”. Answering the question “how did Dostoevsky read Kant”, Golosovker undertakes a number of original and debatable intellectual moves based on the novel “The Brothers Karamazov” and “The Critique of Pure Reason”. He develops a personalized philosophy and offers a special understanding of antinomianism. Solving the “secret of the author” (Dostoevsky), Golosovker creates his own “author's book”. In the book he encrypts his own philosophical project, never directly referring to it. The task of the article is to decipher the “author's book”, such work has not yet been undertaken in the research literature. The central theme in the interpretation is the confrontation between imaginatio and ratio, which received its conceptualization in the project of imaginative philosophy. The attitude to the schematized, abstract image of Kant is considered separately. The theme of the confrontation between philosophy-as-art and philosophy-as-science leads to the problem of the philosophy’s fate and sounds relevant in the modern intellectual space. The article stresses that the legacy of Golosovker has not yet found its place in the history of Russian philosophy. The author shows not only the inclusion of Golosovker in the Russian intellectual tradition, but also his difference from “Russian religious metaphysics”. The article is prepared as a part of the ongoing study on the reconstruction and conceptualization of the philosophical heritage of Golosovker.
At approximately the same time (i.e. in 1920-s and 1930-s), two contemporaries, M. Heidegger and Y.E. Golosovker, turned their attention to the poetry of F. Hölderlin. This article discusses their views on the writings of the German poet. Despite the fact that no direct intellectual contacts were found between the thinkers, Hölderlin’s poetry becomes the point of intersection of their interests, making it possible to identify the “parallels” without contact. Through Heidegger’s scheme (gods, poet, people) and the three dialectics of Golosovker (healing-sacrifice-transformation) the article shows the similarities and fundamental differences in their interpretation of Hölderlin as well as the many ways in which their interpretations complement each other. The article analyzes the concept of “madness” as it was understood by each thinker. According to Golosovker, the cause of madness is “honest burghers” (the people) – contemporaries of the poet; Heidegger, on the other hand, saw the source of the disease in the “excessive brightness of the light” and “hints of the gods”, which had been “revealed” to Hölderlin. The interpretation of “nature” in Hölderlin’s poetry requires special attention: the two thinkers offer different optics through which the poet appears as a proponent of an aesthetic panpsychism or a special kind of ontology. In their exploration of Hölderlin, the two philosophers draw important conclusions about modernity as a kind of intermediate era. They call it “impoverished time” or a period between “the first and second harmonies”. Heidegger and Golosovker offer two solutions to the problem of modernity. In each of the solutions, the poet occupies the key position. The differences in the interpretations largely reflect the biographies of both thinkers and the historical context, as discussed in the final part. Not only an understanding of modernity, but also a hope or lack thereof with respect to the future is an important topic in the potential Russian-European dialogue between two contemporaries about Hölderlin’s poetry.
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.
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.
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.