?
Рецепция философии Ф.В.Й. Шеллинга в поздних работах А.Ф. Лосева
The issue delivers an analysis of schellingian motives in the later works by A.F. Losev. The author brings information about Losev’s retrospective evaluation of Schelling’s influence on the formation of his own philosophical approach, it’s specific character and it’s grade. The author shows that all the main investigation projects of the later Losev which have been realized during several decades of systematic studies have their ground in the same conceptual model which bears from Schelling’s idea of potencies as various form of quantitative difference between opposite factors. Losev refers to Schelling both explicitly in his commentaries on the history of philosophy and implicitly in his attempts to clear and to elaborate Schelling’s dialectical concepts. In his monumental project of his “History of the ancient aesthestics” Losev uses Schellings theory of potencies as the main instrument for the conceptualizing ancient Greek culture with it’s emphasis on the real and the corporal. In the context of his sigh theory it makes him able to draw an integral theory of verbal and plastic expression which synthesizes the most imporrtant innovations of semiotics, structural linguistics and information theory. In his studies on the European aesthetics it delivers him a matrix for his typology of styles in the art history. Schelling’s method of potencies is for Losev both a mean of hermeneutics and a conceptual tool for the elaboration of the system of categories of culture. The key reference in both contexts is Schelling’s theory of symbol. Thea author proves his hypothesis throgh the intertextual analysis of Losev’s works from 1970-1980s published in his life time and posthumously. Manifold parallelisms in these texts without any explicit cross references build a specific connection of meanings which make it possible to reveal a religious metaphysical background of the scientific language of Losev’s later works. The study creates precinditions for the more differentiated understanding of the discursive strategy of the later Losev and demonstrates their consistency and continuity in regard on the earlier works from 1920s.