Интеллигенция в поисках идентичности. Достоевский. Толстой
The monograph is focused on Russian intelligentsia self-identification that is considered both in the philosophical and in the cultural perspective. The text consists of two parts. The first one deals with the formation of the intelligentsia, beginning from the 18th century to the present, the problematization of the most important themes and ideas is displayed; the second one reveals a specific intellectual, spiritual, vital opposition of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy to the Russian intelligentsia history, status, and fate. Both writers, while holding diametrically opposite world outlooks, were quite critical towards the intelligentsia’s ways of thinking, its ideology, basic values and behavior patterns.
A special attention is paid to the intelligentsia’s “binary consciousness” that “works” pendulum-like, shifting from some specific values to the opposite ones and back, as well as some of its representatives’ holistic (all-embracing) worldview that is quite contrary to the dialogic one. It is not only reflection exercise, but the value content of intelligentsia’s ideas as well. The ideas within that worldview from time to time change up ground, sometimes up to the quite opposite ones. Dostoevsky reconstructed the negative image of an intelligentsia member and, paradoxically, reproduced the same binary oppositions approach in his own worldview. Tolstoy, in his philosophy and life-faith, tried to return to the culture of interpersonal dialogue and integrity.
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.
Ideas of the creation of the new human being (новый человек) in Russian history and culture from the 10th century until the homo sovieticus.
In the article the author analyses Dඈඌඍඈඒൾඏඌඒ´s story “Bobok”, which concerns the idea of relationship between life and death. The text describes living of people who don´t die, or rather who are already dead in their lifetime. The story follows up the topic used in the prior prose “Notes from the Dead House”. Particularity of the story “Bobok” is based on the impossibility of a dialogue between “a body and a soul” in a sense of the medieval tradition – here souls are rotting together with bodies, their corporeal life continues after the death. It is a specifi c image of immortality (life after life) and one of the most dreadfull metaphor of the life in Russia. The author percieves his work also as a dialogue between Dඈඌඍඈඒൾඏඌඒ and Pඅൺඍඈ.
This manuscript explores alternatives to the currently dominant model of political identification with a nation (nation-state), namely versions of civilizational, cosmopolitan and identification. In the course of the research author concludes that transnational identification can not become a solution to the problem of “identity crisis” for large political communities. However, the theoretical investigation of this form of identification may be relevant to the life strategies of single individuals who face existence under the dominant political order of the nation-state, despite the fact that their practices in a global world has already gone beyond national borders.
The monograph may be of interest to students in the field of political theory, international relations and philosophy, as well as a wide range of readers ingaged in a problem of the construction of political identities in the era of globalization.
The response of Leo Tolstoy to the First Russian Revolution highlighted new aspects of his teaching, which had long occupied an important place in Russian debates about the most important. He himself began his own personal uprising against the government back in the 70s, and his sermon of non-violence managed to acquire polemical works, arrays of pros and cons, and even sects, but the revolution showed that everything is not so transparent in his understanding of violence and state and the role of personality in history. There was a mutual reflection of two mirrors - Tolstoy and the Revolution. And this revealed some element that fell in Tolstoy’s previous doctrine: the motive, the invisibility of which led to a simplified reading of Tolstoy’s already deliberately simple teachings, to a suspiciously easy revelation of obvious contradictions and inconsistencies in his writings.
Collection is published conclusions of Tolstovedov.
In his article Vladimir Kantor explores the destiny of Russia intelligentsia within the context of cultural crisis that took place at the turn of XIX and XX centuries, analyzing the Vekhovs, a group of leading intellectuals who ran a collection of essays, titled "Vekhi", studying their relationship towards that Russian cultural phenomenon. To author, the intelligentsia is considered as a critical factor in the development of Russian history. Within a context of the struggle around the "Vekhi", by referring to famous philosophical and literature books, published in 1909, the author focuses on relationships between intelligentsia and ordinary people, their attractive and repulsive interaction, which represents the key theme of the Russian destiny. Any historical movement occurs through tragedy; heroes who move the history have to sacrifice themselves to provide that movement. Confirmation to that idea would be rejection and exclusion of the Russian intelligentsia from the country's mentality throughout a number of generations which ultimately led to its tragic being.
"Semiotics of Scandal" is the third collection of the series "Mechanisms of culture". It presents the materials of an international conference held at the Center for Slavic studies (Sorbonne, Paris). The authors, using different methodologies, analyze different forms of scandal as one of the dominant categories of the literary process, history, and politics.
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.