К вопросу о западноевропейских соответствиях толстовскому выражению «догматический роман»
This paper presents a solution for mining the biographical information from commentaries on Leo Tolstoy's letters. It is implemented as a part of Tolstoy Digital Project - a semantically marked-up web publication of the 90-volume complete collection of Leo Tolstoy's works. Extraction of relevant biographical information will be used to create an open database for all the persons who were somehow connected with Tolstoy or Tolstoy's works. The paper also accounts for various subtleties of the commentary apparatus and pays special attention to specific difficulties of biographical information extraction, such as the problem of defining the boundaries of expressions denoting profession, or the problem of non-standardized syntactic constructions for kinship relations.
The article deals with one storyline of the novel Anna Karenina that stands as the key for the research into the significance of anglomania in the novel.
The 1850-1870s in Russian culture is the times of most intensive formation of the image of the UK as a highly complex combination of real and mythological elements.
The novel Anna Karenina, which Tolstoy himself called the novel about modern life, sets forth the fashion for everything ‘English’ in Russian high society in the 1870s with almost documentary precision.
The episode the article deals with is Anna Karenina's reading of an English novel. The article looks at different theories of the origin of the novel and suggests a particular novel as the source for the English novel in Anna Karenina.
Article argues that the knowledge of the particular English novel contributes not only to the research of anglomania in Anna Karenina and other Tolstoy's works but also gives a significant insight into the study of the characters in the novel.
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 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.
Leo Tolstoy and Max Weber on value neutrality of university research The problem of value neutrality of science is considered on the basis of works by Leo Tolstoy and Max Weber. In the first part of the article, the statements on the value neutrality of scientific knowledge and university teaching by Weber and Tolstoy are made explicit and analyzed in a comparative perspective. In the second part, the central problem of Tolstoy and Weber, that is, a rational choice of the value paradigm, is studied systematically. Differences in their assumptions and conclusions are shown. In the third part, a historical commentary to the context of Tolstoys and Webers works is given. The works are treated as episodes in a wider modern history of the value neutralization of the scientific knowledge and university teaching. The specifics of this process are tightly connected with the fundamental principles of the modern research university (the Humboldtian model of university).
Collection is published conclusions of Tolstovedov.
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.
Article is dedicated to the problem of the formation of Lev Tolstoy's world views and evolution of his views on the violence and the war. There is shown Tolstoy's way from the patriotic directivity to the substantiation of idea nonviolence and the nonresistance to evil by force.