География искусства: инсайд-аут
Abstract. The article explores the notions of post-city and post-city studies in the imaginal-ontological context and outlines the basic ontological models that help us imagine a large city of Modern and describe its radical spatial transformations. The author introduces the concept of co-spatiality, which determines the prospects for phenomenological studies of post-urban realities, and discusses the importance of the phenomena of borderlineness and post-nomadism in the formation of the post-urbanism and non-urban forms of settlement. The urban space ceases to be a city space in the traditional sense; it is rather divided into numerous "fractals" coexisting with space, constantly updated local situational events that can be interpreted ontologically and semantically in a variety of ways. The space of a big city, a megalopolis of the mature Modernity, is primarily an apophatic negativity of the growing and expanding movement, as if it denies that it grows parallel to the phenomenology of complete and local dissociation. The phenomenon of co-spatialitiy(ies) can be considered as the key discourse, taking into account the ontological point of view when analyzing the concept of post-city / post-metropolis. At the same time, the dynamic development of large cities of late Modernity led to the emergence and development of the phenomenon of interdimensionality. On the one hand, the physical representation of the urban environment is some sort of a "bait", a manifestation of the sociocultural and communicative appeal of large cities; on the other hand, they indicate, as a rule, a meta-visualization of emptiness, dis-communication and the formation of powerful ontological zones of "invisibility", which can occur parallel to coexisting communication flows, boundaries, nodes and places. Post-urbanism, apparently, should act, for the most part, as a boundary concept that describes and characterizes the boundary worlds of the accompanying spaces, only touching upon, but not intruding deeply into the dominant visual, sound and verbal affects of the physical reality of cities.
From methodological standpoint, a comprehensive study of post-urbanism imply a cognitive fixation any spatial events as co-spatial. We can talk about the co-existence of different cognitive / ontological regimes in the post-urban reality, which themselves can also be called co-spatial. Co-spatialities, understood as a communicative event nodes, can be considered as key elements in prototypical imagination map of post-urban space. Post-urban geo-cultures, producing a variety of cartographies of the imagination, are a fundamentally heterotopic. Different communities become post-urban, forming their transversal cartographies of the imagination, constantly proliferating, becoming more and more co-spatial and, consequently, generating this post-politics, which aimed at accelerating multiple dispersion of communicative events. Post-urban communities create a post-political situations, in which the cartographies of the imagination becomes the basis of new urban landscapes or new geo-cultures. Post-city develops practices and processes of hetero-textuality when the texts of individual geo-cultures not assume a common space of reading, the plan of value and the plan of expression, and becoming only in terms of consistency as the landscape modulations, immanent to imaginary cartographies. Any post-city cartography of imagination supports special landscape modes which create the realities of material and mental character. Any cartography of imagination can phenomenologically think as the line becoming a particular identity of individuals and communities. Post-nomadic mobilities lead to the coexistence of multitudes of such cartographies, whose event co-spatialities create a post-political communities, manipulating differences "velocity" of multiple communicative discourses. The creation of new cartographies of imagination forms post-urbanism as an art of detailed co-spatialities.
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.