Древнегреческий миф и язык
The first full edition of the book "Hellenic Religion of the suffering God" with a commentary.
A commentary to V.Ivanov's book "Dionysos and the The-Dionysian Religion" (1923)
The article is a historiographical and theoretical overview of the basic concepts of the genesis of ancient Greek philosophy in the Russian and Soviet philosophical literature 19–20th centuries. The author recalls that the first information about the ancient world appeared in Russia in the 10th century, and indicates the scientific study of ancient Greek philosophy in Russia began only in the 19th century. One of the first original research in this area belonged to the O. Novitsky. He put forward the idea of the development of Greek philosophy from mythology and religion. This concept was developed to creatively S. Trubetskoy. He argued that the philosophy of the Greeks is a special phase of their religious ideas.
The class approach has dominated in the Soviet history of philosophy, and it required to consider the philosophy of the ancient Greeks as a direct reflection of the contemporary level of development of the productive forces. Concepts of philosophy genesis conformed with the requirements of the political situation. Thus, the epistemogeneous concept corresponded to the Communist Party course to struggle against religious vestiges in Soviet society and apologetics myth in a bourgeois political thought. According to this concept philosophy arose from science as opposed to religion and the fight against it. And hypothesis of oriental responsible policy of rapprochement with the countries of the Third World and criticism of eurocentrism. This concept is emphasized oriental influences on Greek philosophy.
In the late 1950s – early 1960s, there is a number of original concepts, operating Marxist methodology as a lively and plastic material. One of the greatest historians of philosophy was A.F. Losev, who created a distinctive methodology for the study of the genesis of philosophy. Interesting theory offered J.E. Golosovker, A.N. Chanyshev, F.C. Kessidy and other scientists. Philosophical debates have become more vivid character and the theoretical value.
The author emphasizes that the conflicting approaches to the problem of the origin of ancient Greek philosophy are attempts to answer the questions of profound character. The debate between supporters of autochthonous and Oriental hypotheses about external sources of Greek philosophy is designed to answer the question: “how and where philosophy emerged?” The question “from what is philosophy emerged?” defined the content of the controversy between the adherents mythogeneous and epistemogeneous concepts concerning the spiritual sources of philosophy. And finally, the question of “how and why philosophy emerged?” accompanied by discussions about social, ontological and other conditions of the emergence of philosophy.
The author argues that the last point in this debate is unlikely to be delivered, because to find the solution to the problem of the genesis of philosophy – it is important to solve the question of philosophy: what is philosophy?
The results of cross-cultural research of implicit theories of innovativeness among students and teachers, representatives of three ethnocultural groups: Russians, the people of the North Caucasus (Chechens and Ingushs) and Tuvinians (N=804) are presented. Intergroup differences in implicit theories of innovativeness are revealed: the ‘individual’ theories of innovativeness prevail among Russians and among the students, the ‘social’ theories of innovativeness are more expressed among respondents from the North Caucasus, Tuva and among the teachers. Using the structural equations modeling the universal model of values impact on implicit theories of innovativeness and attitudes towards innovations is constructed. Values of the Openness to changes and individual theories of innovativeness promote the positive relation to innovations. Results of research have shown that implicit theories of innovativeness differ in different cultures, and values make different impact on the attitudes towards innovations and innovative experience in different cultures.