This article is based on a discussion held in Athens in April 2002, in the framework of a research visit, supported by the National Technical University of Athens, among the following participants: Alexander Pavlovits Ogurtsov (APO), Svetlena Sergeevna Neretina (SSN), and Michalis Assimakopoulos (MA) who translated and annotated the Russian text. The later wishes to thank his Russian teachers in philosophy, E.A. Mamchur and language, A.A. Nekrasova The translation was reviewed and emended by E.M. Swiderski, editor of SEET.Svetlana Neretina is (...) senior researcher in the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), doctor of philosophy, titled professor for medieval philosophy, author of: The Conceptualism of Peter Abelard (1994), Believing Reason (1995), Tropes and Concepts (1999), Time of Culture (2000, with A. Ogurtsov), articles and translations on Philosophy of culture, email, [email protected]. (shrink)

When describing the essential features of the Russian peasantry, Gorky draws attention to the concepts of cruelty and, as a result, pity, which are necessary for understanding its actions. Cruelty,...

Существуют различные методологические и теоретические стратегии в определении сути политики. Авторы выбрали путь выявления и описания концептов политической культуры как тех инвариантных структур сознания.

Plato's dialogue "Alcibiades I" introduces the very essence of philosophical business — knowledge, as far as it is accessible to man. The dialogue conducted by the wise Socrates and the young vain Alcibiades, who, wanting to play the first role in politics, decided to "fill the whole, one might say, humanity with his name and power," i. e. to unleash a war. Socrates, crushed by such a desire, prompted Alcibiades to consider what are called the "last questions": war and peace. (...) Unfolding the argument, he discusses the concepts of justice/injustice, right/lawlessness, good/evil, which turn out to be ambiguous, as well as the idea of freedom: on the one hand (Socrates) it is understood as a characteristic of virtue, and on the other (Alcibiades) — self-will and voluntarism. The need for Alcibiades to remain "himself" presupposed the tyrannically accessible possibility of war, which was a way of exercising his "freedom". The war turned out to be a perversion of the world, an "adventure of the spirit" and "the greatest grief" that people bring released forces that the world does not know how to use. (shrink)

The article, with reference to a selection of materials devoted to the theme of "war" and published in issue 18 in the journal "Vox" for 2015, re-emphasizes the need, no matter how tragic for thought and being, to end the very state of war as "father of all" (Heraclitus). The author emphasizes that human speech is permeated with struggle, which still connects the new and the old states of the world. The point is not in its content, not in the (...) dialogues, oppositions and contradictions expressed in the text. The very organization of speech, its phonetics shows how, in poetry and prose, sounds push apart, merge, even interfere with each other, weakening each other, allowing the pronunciation of the superfluous or not giving the opportunity to pronounce what seems superfluous. However, the mind, memory and reason inherent in man act in different directions, suggest different solutions, expressed primarily and most sharply through feelings. Now, one of them is important for the preservation of the genus sapiens: the emphasis on the anti-militarist concept, since the war has become total, and the consciousness is militaristic. The world has become a war, and concepts have acquired the character of shape-shifting. War has now become an existential problem, the ultimate expression of the existentials of care, fear, abandonment, displacing civilizational and cultural attitudes, putting a person not even before questioning himself, but about the possibility of belonging to the genus sapiens. The point of reconfiguring thinking is to ban war as a state of peace, which will make the 21st century meaningful. For today, any local conflict in fact means an invasion of the world order. (shrink)

Andrei Platonov’s novel Chevengur does not only describe the concrete model of building communism that was being realized in real life; it also discusses the problem of creating a new human being w...

The article focuses on the use of repetition in the work of Mikhail Yu. Lermontov. Lermontov utilizes repetition to create a multiplicity of meanings, to redraw plotlines, and to depict the life of things and characters in a state of freedom. An analysis of three Lermontov poems, The Confession, Boyarin Orsha, and Mtsyri shows that they constitute a single train of thought, which cannot be broken without violating Lermontov's attempt to show the limits of not only the human soul, but (...) also the power of judgment, a central idea of European philosophy at the time. Confession and judgment are the central themes of the three poems. (shrink)

For Russia, the beginning of the twentieth century was a step into Modernity, into that pan-European new time that in the seventeenth century heralded a permanent social change, which has defined our entire epoch up to the present day—it was a time of transformation, war, and revolution.1 A concept of “revolution” that emerged within theology marked a global shift toward modernization, which defines Modernity even in those moments when there is a fallback to the preceding tradition, the meaning of which (...) is lost. Thus, the current break with the objectives of the 1917 revolution does not correspond with the illusion of a return to old values. The idea of the redesign of traditions and their introduction into the past is a truly new thing, for no other time dared to change the past in the name of state interests. (shrink)

The problem of personality in philosophy has been significant since the emergence of Christianity. In Soviet Russia, this problem has been actualized since the 2nd half of the twentieth century, since the Thaw, when the books of Russian religious philosophers became known. We were the original heirs of Christian ontology and ethics, which assumed that a personal appeal to God on You (Tu) testified to a change of places in the interior of being itself, which becomes intimate, close, because the (...) infinite God, being in a person, makes him the same infinite person. The Latin term "persona" is translated as "mask" (personality). V.V. Vinogradov in the "History of Words" says that the word "personality", associated with Latin and Greek meanings (persona, prosopon), was not used massively in the Old Russian language until the XVII century, and in the XVII and XVIII centuries it began to denote only the official position of a person. It is impossible to associate this meaning of the face with what was in antiquity and the Middle Ages. This is a homonym. Reflecting on Greek literature, S. S. Averintsev wrote that the term "creativity" is poorly applicable to the Greek philosophers: "poyesis" is a matter understood as an invention. The Greeks invented an objectified type of communication-through-literature, i.e. dialogue, consciously separated from life communication. Dialogue as an invention revealed the fundamental undialogical nature of Greek literature, and Socrates is the ideal of a radically undialogical person who cannot be internally hurt by the word of the interlocutor. Therefore, for Averintsev, a personality is a mind free from a "dialogical situation", it is a mask, an individual understood as an eidos. It is the mask — "immobile-clear, fully revealed and appeared" — that is the semantic limit of a continuously emerging face. By opening the "mask", the Greeks emphasized the importance of individuality. V. S. Bybler, criticizing Averintsev, argues that dialogue is not a construction, it is an internal dispute of the philosopher taking place in his own soul. He is in the thought itself, pushing its definitions to the limit and reaching the border of other possible definitions, concepts, understandings. According to Bybler, the thought itself is dialogical, communicating with itself within itself and forming a gap between itself and the other "I". At the same time, Bibler defines his philosophy as the philosophy of an eternally borderline culture. Dialogue is a tense collaboration between an author who worked in a past culture and a reader who lives in a modern culture. Personality for the Bibler is the ultimate embodiment of the individual — the reverse course of Averintsev. M. Ya. Gefter and V. V. Bibikhin worked out this problem 20 years later. Gefter, based on the unmotivated appearance of homo sapiens and the unexplained appearance of speech, emphasized that speech destroyed the limit of understanding between people. This is also connected with his reliance on the concept of the World of Worlds and the definition of personality, which, in his opinion, is not a higher form built over the individual, but a later phenomenon that entered into a dispute with individuation. Personality is a choice, a form of overcoming oneself with access to others, a case. Bibikhin, not agreeing with the theoretical positions of Averintsev and Bybler, turns out to be closer to Gefter. It does not proceed from the development of the individual or personality, having changed the aspect of reasoning. He posed the problem of the wholeness of a human (homo) who initially deals not with knowledge, but with being and non-being. Before knowledge there is affirmation and negation, which sound in speaking silence before any speech and push a person to act. A human (homo), i.e. not an individual or a person, begins with an act; he is, first of all, such an act. The difference between Bibikhin's approach, which is closely related to the ideas of hesychasm, from Averintsev and Bybler lies in his understanding of philosophy as timeless. For him, everything known is the World, not even modernity. Personal properties (prosopon) are possessed only by God, who is "personal" and "hypostatic", because He expresses energy. This problem of the action of the energetic Word is the most important witness of the world given through man and recognized through language. Language poses the problem of understanding, assuming an initial misunderstanding between people. (shrink)

Russian classic writer Ivan Turgenev, analyzing the Russian reality of the second half of the 19th century, presented inside one work – novel Smoke – an anthropological review of society, showing a change in the speech styles of different layers of the population. The novel is dominated by the idea of a dialogue of cultures – an obvious dialogue of Western European and Russian culture, and no less obvious dialogue that took place within the multitude of Russian cultures: gentry’s and (...) common people’s, merchants’, raznochintsys’, and philistines’ cultures. In Turgenev’s novel, the sign of a new time is freely discussed opportunities of solving the problems that have arisen, fnding solutions not in a rational way but in the hope for suddenness and fortune. However, the ways of solving problems, regardless of the possibilities for their implementation, must be discussed, argued, and analyzed. Therefore, the novel intuitively shows the way of the birth of a parliament, which was absent inRussia at that time. The article demonstrates the importance of a rational, philosophical way of reasoning, which can become a life principle when words and deeds correspond with each other. Turgenev in some way – through different speech instances – stratifed the new generation, showing a new face of unstableRussia. The main driving force of many, if not all, of Turgenev’s novels is freedom and the words and deeds born by it. A previously unseen fgure of a revolutionary appears, expressing a new attitude to society and to power. Turgenev’s modernity and timeliness consists in fxing such a mentality in which the emphasis is placed on the metaphysical idea of the beginning: it exists, it receives an impetus – and there is almost no movement, everything is only projected, only utopized, turning the thinker into an odd man. And although not only the idea of freedom, but thefree state of a person is recognized as a historical fact, he emphasizes that Russian freedom was born without waking up. (shrink)

An attempt to investigate philosophical texts (in this case, Hegelian ones) from the point of view of a single (in this case, Marxist-Leninist) ideology leads to a change in their meaning. Concepts or are interpreted in the exact opposite sense, which revives the old problem from Aristotle, the relationship between the name and the thing. When names are imposed on things that are opposite to those that originally exist, the correspondence between the name and the thing is violated, leading to (...) the destruction of the thing or the whole world, if they are consciously renamed, then the key things of the world are not recognized. If a person is self-consciousness, as Hegel defines it, then such a person loses both consciousness and the mind closely connected with it, he moves away from the mind (goes crazy) and receives the definition of an unreasonable (insane, demens) mortal living being, thereby losing and the name "man". About this in the VI century. Boethius wrote, Berdyaev defined it as a disease of being, and Nietzsche as degenerativeness. J. Agamben defined the current state that emerged after the pandemic as a rivalry between three religions: Christianity, capitalism and science. The upper hand in this rivalry is won by a science deprived of a theoretical status, which put forward as one of its modes medicine, understood as a religion and used by the authorities as a system of coercive rules. He calls this state the beginning of a world civil war. In turn, such a state is really capable of depriving the participants and supporters of such a war of self-consciousness desired by Hegel and, accordingly, the status of participation in the human race predicted by Boethius. (shrink)