?
«Непрерывное творение»: две перспективы в картезианском горизонте
The article argues that V. Podoroga and M. Mamardashvili’s
understanding of the concept of “continuous creation” is noticeably
different in a number of aspects. Descartes breathed new life into the old
idea of creatio continua, which thus fell into the Modern times arsenal
of ideas; Mamardashvili and Podoroga, in turn, gave it today’s reading, in
which there are both areas of intersection and characteristic differences.
V. Podoroga questions the Cartesian connection between freedom and
duration in Mamardashvili’s version. In the interpretation of Cartesian
freedom, he believes, Mamardashvili follows Sartre: in this case, man takes
on the function of God and becomes a necessary condition for his own
existence. However, an analysis of classical texts shows that Mamardashvili’s
interpretation is quite correct: Descartes (and Mamardashvili) proceed from
the discreteness of the moments in time, which require special efforts
to assemble. The effort of God maintains the existence of the world; the
effort of the cogito maintains the being of thought. Mamardashvili draws
attention, as Descartes advises, precisely to the causes of being (secundum
esse) and to the intuition of discreteness of moments of time, which is
important for Descartes. It is also clear that the one who performs the act
of cogito does not at all assume the function of God: on the contrary, he
discovers in himself dependence on the higher being, which gives the power
of creation. The roll-overs and dissonances of these interpretations show
that Podoroga’s thesis about the absence of “new” in Mamardashvili’s ideas,
replaced by the creative energy of his “Voice” in the act of thought, needs
correction and clarification. It can be said that the transfer of a number of
functions from the Logos to the Voice, carried out by V. Podoroga, led to a
certain preponderance of corporality in understanding the peculiar method
of Mamardashvili. But still, this does not depreciate the significance of the
deciphering of the phenomenon of Mamardashvili, which is unique in its
versatility, undertaken by him.