Search results

The article is devoted to the analysis of the types of rationality in the modern philosophy. During the description of every type of rationality the special idealization of subject recognizing is introduced. As far as the subject is the reason of any activity, the model of evolution of the rationality is studied in the relation to the cognitive activity of an empiric subject.

Object of study this article is the problem of progressive development and aesthetizations social relations of Russia before reform (1861), reflected in literary, social, political works political attitudes of P.L. Lavrov. An object of research are his literary, social, economic, political views analyzed from aesthetic positions. In article is the actual socio-philosophy problem of development, transformation, perfection, humanisation and harmonisation social relations.

Работа посвящена рассмотрению политической философии представителя итальянского идеализма XIX в. Джузеппе Мадзини в контексте его жизни и событий эпохи объединения Италии «Рисорджименто». Предметом являются представления Мадзини о справедливом государственном устройстве, определение ключевых понятий его социальной философии: «народ», «нация», «ассоциация», «свобода». На основании работы Мадзини «О долге человека» раскрывается политическая онтология его республиканского идеала, морально-этический аспект творчества мыслителя. Также рассматриваются некоторые аспекты апелляции к наследию Мадзини в фашистскую эпоху. ; The author looks at the political philosophy of an Italian idealist of the 19th century Giuseppe Mazzini in the context of his life and the events of theunification of Italy the Risorgimento. Representing Mazzini's vision of thejust government structure, the author brings to light the key notions of Mazzini's philosophy, such as the people, the nation, the association, and the liberty. The political ontology of Mazzini's republican ideal and the moral aspect of his theory become evident from his work «On the Duties of Man». The paper also reviews some aspects of Mazzini's legacy appeal which came to the forein the age of fascism.

Theater requires artifice, justice demands truth. Are these demands as irreconcilable as the pejorative term "show trials" suggests? After the Second World War, canonical directors and playwrights sought to claim a new public role for theater by restaging the era's great trials as shows. The Nuremberg trials, the Eichmann trial, and the Auschwitz trials were all performed multiple times, first in courts and then in theaters. Does justice require both courtrooms and stages?In Staged, Minou Arjomand draws on a rich archive of postwar German and American rehearsals and performances to reveal how theater can become a place for forms of storytelling and judgment that are inadmissible in a court of law but indispensable for public life. She unveils the affinities between dramatists like Bertolt Brecht, Erwin Piscator, and Peter Weiss and philosophers such as Hannah Arendt and Walter Benjamin, showing how they responded to the rise of fascism with a new politics of performance. Linking performance with theories of aesthetics, history, and politics, Arjomand argues that it is not subject matter that makes theater political but rather the act of judging a performance in the company of others. Staged weaves together theater history and political philosophy into a powerful and timely case for the importance of theaters as public institutions.

This essay addresses Jacques Rancière's attempt to critique notions of resistance invoked by Jean-François Lyotard and Gilles Deleuze. It focuses in particular on Rancière's efforts to contain Deleuze within a shallow account of the aesthetic tradition of the past two centuries and to disqualify a post-Heideggerian thought of difference in philosophy of art. It ultimately takes issue with Rancière's effort to police the function of modern art.

This study traces a persistent connection between the image of disease and the concept of difference in Plato's Gorgias, Phaedo, and Timaeus. Whether the disease occurs in the body, soul, city, or cosmos, it always signals an unassimilated difference that is critical to the argument. I argue that Plato represents—and induces—diseases of difference in order to produce philosophers, skilled in the art of differentiation. Because his dialogues intensify rather than cure difference, his philosophy is better characterized as a "higher pathology" than a form of therapy. An introductory section on Sophist lays out the main features of the concept of difference-in-itself and concisely presents its connection to disease. The main chapters examine the relationship in different realms. In the first chapter, the problem is moral and political: in the Gorgias, rhetoric is a corrupting force, while philosophy purifies the city and soul by drawing distinctions. In the second chapter on Phaedo, the problem is epistemological: if we correctly interpret the illness of misology, as the despair caused by the inability to consistently distinguish truth and falsity, we can resolve the mystery of Socrates' cryptic last words ("We owe a cock to Asclepius; pay the debt and do not neglect it"). In the third chapter on Timaeus, Plato treats diseases of the soul, the body, and the cosmos itself. There, the correlation between disease and difference actually helps humans situate themselves in the vast universe—for in both cases, proper differentiation is the key to a healthy, well-constructed life.My emphasis on Plato's theory of difference counters the traditional focus on his theory of Forms. Elucidating the link between the concept of difference and the experience of disease has broader impact for the ageless question of how we should live our lives. In Plato's system, neither disease nor difference is a wholly negative element to be eradicated. Instead, difference and disease, in their proper proportions, are responsible for the fullness of the world and the emergence of the philosophical subject.

What does Aristotle regard as the conditions of a legitimate relationship between political rule and the law? The interpretation of Aristotelian politics in this study shows that the central political project of the modern age - namely, the grounding and implementation of the natural rights of the individual - can be conceptualized as the continuation and embodiment of Aristotle's political philosophy rather than a radical break from it

In Levinas's philosophy, "nature" refers to two distinct and sometimes opposed concepts. Most often it stands for being and perseverance in being (i.e., conatus): it is what is and wants to be. In some places, however, "nature" indicates the limits of human power, violence, or hubris, and reveals the uncanny unlimitedness of transcendence. In other words, "nature" designates primarily the ontological character of Creation but also sometimes the otherness beyond ontology. It expresses the egoistic but also sometimes the altruistic. It commonly discourages ethics but also sometimes encourages it. The aim of this paper is to analyze how these two meanings of "nature" meet and contradict each other in Levinas's philosophy, and to interpret their meeting and contradiction. Levinas never offers a studied reflection on nature per se. However, his Talmudic Readings include descriptions of nature as both ontological and inspiring the ethical. Reinterpreting some of the Readings I show that, for Levinas, nature is associated with war, conquest and destruction, but is sometimes presented as the cure for these ontological evils. In other words, its function is similar to that of politics. It embodies a necessity that must be moderated by an ethics which, in a way, comes from nature itself.

In the 1980s, Historical Sociology and Philosophy turned to the subject of Empire, based on new premises. The Empire is no longer understood by many researchers as a vestige of the political reality of the past. They began to interpret it as a mechanism for transforming chaos into order, connecting the civilizational periphery to the 'future', which is controlled by the center of civilization. The metaphor of the 'eternal return' became a popular way of describing the phenomenon of Empire. At the same time, this interpretation of Empire somewhat simplifies this phenomenon, adjusting it to the realities of the modern world with its globalist tendencies and centers of power (the U.S.A., the European Union), which provide these tendencies. At the same time, the idea of the nation-state has become an instrument for destruction of empires of a different, non-modern type, in order to integrate them into the order of the global future. Long before the realities of the European Union, K. Leontiev predicted that nationalism would become a prologue to the homogenization of human beings and their culture. Contrary to the 'arithmetic equality' of Western civilization, states of the 'old', pre-colonial imperial type, one of which Russia used to be and remains, in a sense, can offer a much more diverse landscape with a significant number of, in modern terms, 'ecological niches' for securing cultural identity. In Russian philosophy, the concept of an imperial-type state was the subject of very fruitful research, and this happened much earlier than the contemporary 'imperial turn' in Political Philosophy and Historical Sociology. The ideas of K. Leontiev convincingly demonstrate this. We believe that the most instructive are K. Leontiev's ideas about the national state, as well as predictions of its future.

The problem, the solution of which this article is devoted to, is related to the lack of special studies of the concept of "invisible enemy" in political philosophy. Existing theoretical works do not pay enough attention to this concept. Its metaphorical use fails to make explicit all of its potential and importance for political philosophy. As "invisible enemies" only in the metaphorical sense of this term can be regarded objects that have a non-anthropogenic nature (viruses, bacteria, sources of disease), as well as extraneous elements of the political body that have destructive potential. The analysis carried out revealed two semantic areas of using the concept of "invisible enemies", relevant to political philosophy, and namely physical and symbolic invisibility. The physical invisibility, which is regarded in the works by Сarl von Clausewitz, Сarl Schmitt, Zygmunt Bauman, Grégoire Chamayou and others, belongs to enemies on the battlefield or to remote warfare. Russian philosophers look at this concept from an ethical perspective (Vladimir Solovyov, Lev Karsavin, Nikolai Berdyaev, Fyodor Stepun). The author of the article substantiates the thesis about the situational and relative nature of the phenomenon of the invisible enemy, associated with reaching the limit of perceptual indistinguishability. The physical invisibility of the enemy is caused by the appropriation of new war spaces in which vertical dimensions are established. Arguing with the ideas of Carl Schmitt, the author uses this concept not only in relation to the irregular fighters (partisans), but also in relation to modern combatants. The ways of acquisition of the symbolic invisibility are revealed in the works of Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Carl Schmitt. It is based on the transfer of the war actor to a different semantic field, in which it is depoliticized and re-symbolized as a civilian object.

This article is about the remarkable philosopher of St Petersburg of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, V.Yu. Sukhachev. The path of his progress, and factors of formation and circumstances of his original thought are presented. He was one of the organizers of the Nietzsche Seminar, which was an important event in the philosophical life of St Petersburg. He was a talented teacher, because he did not teach anything intentionally. With his lectures and speeches, he presented the image of a radically modern thinker, who skillfully navigated the entire history of philosophical thought. The stoic asceticism of the philosopher, including abstinence from vanity, was natural for him. The initiation and the result of his reflections was this thesis: a philosopher should stand on his own. One should know well the history of philosophy, its concepts, the logic of the development of its ideas and, of course, if possible, to read them in the original. But one's own grounds in philosophy are not based only on concepts of heritage, but also on practically accumulated personal potential of resistance and the trained critical ability of the mind. The article analyzes the cornerstone of Vyacheslav Sukhachev's philosophical position, his polemical theses and provocations, and his advance and contribution to the history of the St Petersburg/Leningrad school of philosophy. The basis of philosophical thinking for him is the will, which manifests itself, ncluding in the traditional "self-care". Will is what makes it possible to take a place in the world, and what makes it possible to be free. Will allows one to establish a sovereign position and outline the limits of existence, to protect them rigidly and prevent others from invading his world. He insists and promotes the idea that neither the historical situation nor the biographical context have their own philosophical value.

The article attempts to provide a comprehensive analytical review of the theoretical heritage of Yu.N. Solonin. Solonin is well known as a statesman, a successful organizer of the life of the Russian philosophical community, but his philosophical works have not yet received due attention from colleagues. This is largely due to the fact that the works written by him are very diverse in nature, subject, form and genre. In addition, they are scattered across various, sometimes difficult-to-access, special and small-circulation publications while also not being systematized. However, such an external randomness of ideas and forms of their textual fixation is not so much a consequence of professional negligence, but rather a conscious cognitive strategy. The methodological attitude towards systematicity, which is experiencing an obvious crisis together with the classical rationality that gave rise to it, can no longer fully satisfy modern demands. This fully applies to humanitarian knowledge, including philosophy. An alternative to this, essentially postclassical approach can be considered holistic. If from this position one approaches the consideration of the philosophical heritage of Solonin, then all the originality, depth and value of what he wrote becomes obvious. First of all, this concerns the style of constructing a philosophical discourse, in which each produced text is "embedded" in a situational predestination, continuing and developing a conversation on a certain topic that was once started. Thus, there is an "overlay" and "increment of meaning", thereby establishing and revealing connections with other fragments. Secondly, the stylistic and thematic space is expanding, discrediting the conventional inviolability of the existing disciplinary, scientific and philosophical canon in the first place. It is possible to talk about a special, not exceptional but quite rare in history, type of philosophizing. The article demonstrates how this happens with such traditional thematic spaces for modern Russian philosophy as science, society, culture, and philosophy itself.

The article examines the role and place of faith in the concept of Vladimir Solovyov who is considered to be the creator of the first Russian philosophical system. The purpose of the article is to determine the epistemological and methodological significance of faith in Solovyov's understanding as a special factor of cognition. In order to study this problem, a synthetic method of reconstruction of the thought of Solovyov as well as a method of philosophical analysis was used. First, Solovyov's project of integral knowledge or free theosophy is presented, i. e. synthesis of philosophy, theology, and science. The suppositions of this concept are revealed and its polemical context is indicated, namely, Solovyov's attempt to overcome the abstract or one-sided principles: reason, empirical experience, and faith in order to create an integral system that should unite all types of knowledge. In addition, philosophy as such corresponds to reason, science to experience, and theology to faith. The second part of the article is devoted to the epistemological aspects of faith in the concept of integral knowledge. It lies in the fact that each act of cognition begins with the assertion of the objective existence of its object, which Solovyov describes as faith in a broad sense of the word. Thus, faith has a universal significance as a necessary condition for the cognitive process. The third part of the article discusses the methodological aspect of faith as a key link in the system of integral knowledge. As a result, faith has a dominant role not only in theology, but in all spheres of knowledge, including philosophy and science. Thus, it is possible to conclude that there is no conflict between faith and reason; on the contrary, they complement each other. Solovyov's position is still relevant nowadays.