Suchergebnisse

The article provides a comparative analysis of the understanding of dialectics by A.F. Losev and G.W.F. Hegel. Both the commonality of approaches and funda­mental differences are revealed here. Both thinkers consider dialectics as a uni­versal philosophical method of cognition. At the same time, Losev, in his in­terpretation, returns to Plato, in whom the dialectic begins with "one" and "the other" (dialogue "Parmenides"), and not "being" and "nothing" ("Science of Logic" by Hegel). The Russian thinker goes beyond the boundaries of Hegel's rationalism, affirming the anagogic (uplifting) and, in its completion, the apo­phatic nature of dialectics, which ascends to the transcendent source. "Absolute dialectics" from him, acquiring this or that content, appears as metaphysics – "absolute mythology". As a result of this, thought again meets being, the empty content, formalism and abstractness of thinking are overcome. Losev revealed the ontological potential of Platonism, freeing dialectics from nihilistic interpre­tation. Studying hesychasm allowed him to overcome both impersonalism and the determinism of Hegel's logic: the basis of dialectics is not negativity, not nothing, but the creativity of the personal principle.

The paper focuses its attention on A.F. Losev's 'philosophy of life', which is one of the key components of his creative heritage. The main stages of development of Losev's 'philosophy of life' are identified: the early period, which is charac­terized by his interest in experimental psychology, in interpretation of percep­tions of the world and in music as an art analogous to life itself; the period of the 1920s when The Dialectics of Myth and Supplement to 'The Dialectics of Myth' are created drawing a phenomenologo-dialectical picture not only of social life – the concrete representations of various 'relative mythologies', but also of an 'ab­solute mythology' – the life of the Absolute Itself; the 1930s–1940s when, along­side the artistic presentation of the author's 'philosophy of life' in philosopho-musical prose, attempts are made to formulate strict dialectics of life as a philo­sophical category, to determine its correlation with such categories as 'essence', 'existence', 'non-existence', 'consciousness', 'the unconscious', 'miracle', 'genus', 'persona', 'genius', 'tragedy', 'death', 'instinct', 'mystic knowledge', etc. The paper raises a question of the evolution of Losev's 'philosophy of life', which is evidenced by the transfer of the logical emphasis – in the early 1940s in the short story "Life" (the author's title is "On contempt for death") – from such a critical for Losev's philosophy of the late 1920s category as 'miracle' to the category of 'sacrifice', and also by abandonment of the category 'myth'. It outlines the philosophical tradition of interpretation of 'philosophy of life' in Russian religious philosophy: E.N. Trubetskoy – S.L. Frank – A.F. Losev. At­tention is drawn to the connection of Losev's philosophy of life with his mathe­matical studies of infinitesimals, which makes to recall not only the ideas of G. Cohen, but also Leo Tolstoy's 'philosophy of history'. Losev's notes of 1933 on the relationship between soul and body, as well as a strict dialectical notes notes "Life" (created approximately in the second half of the 1930s) are concep­tualized for the first time and introduced for scholarly use. The text of these notes is reproduced from the manuscript copies in the personal archive of the philosopher. All conjectures are placed in angle brackets, the spellingand the punctuation of the original has been preserved.

The article examines the ideas of Heidegger, Losev, and Ortega y Gasset regarding the possibility and necessity of translating philosophical texts. The concept of non-translation is an acknowledgment of the impossibility of adequately reproducing a philosophical text in another language while preserving its integrity. Particularly interesting for comparison are the concepts and practices of translation/non-translation found in works written during the same period (1920—1940s), which reveal numerous points of contact. All three philosophers reject conventional translation, proposing instead to consider ordinary words as philosophical terms. Despite the fact that such an approach may make the text appear contradictory to familiar norms, the philosophers insist on the necessity of violating convention. The opposition of translation vs non-translation is related to the multilingual nature of the text, as well as to the problem of language hierarchy and the attitude towards translating others' and one's own texts. Losev and Heidegger employ the technique of retrospective translation, which involves etymologizing or contextualizing texts that are older than the translated text. Etymologization (alongside commentary) is seen as a way to transfer ideas into a different cultural system, and Ortega y Gasset refers to humans as "etymological animals". In Losev's interpretive translation, foreign translations or translations into other languages are viewed as interpretations and become objects of study. While Heidegger repeatedly criticizes the understanding of language as communication, and Ortega y Gasset takes a fundamentally anti-communicative position, Losev, on the contrary, emphasizes communication. Losev and Heidegger operate with the concept of clarity: the former consistently strives for maximum clarity by using apophatic techniques to eliminate irrelevant interpretations of meanings, but clarity is more of a propaedeutic task; the latter does not aim for clarity but utilizes the technique of infinite clarification. Both approaches raise the question of whether the criterion of scientificity is applicable to the translation of philosophical texts.

The attention of modern philosophy to the ancient concept of the One has led to the emergence of an independent intellectual stream – henology. Although the concept came out from European studies, within Russian philosophy it is best developed by Alexey Losev, Losev characterized "The One" as fundamental category of philosophical knowledge. In this article analyzes the importance of the topic and pays attention to its value for modern ontology and the state of metaphysics in general. It is noted that the discussion of the Oneness is built around one aspect – the crisis of metaphysics and solutions to this problem. Due to the fundamentality of the question, it revolves around the figure of Plato and the Platonic philosophy, but goes different ways. It is noted that, on the one hand, apologists for the One find in Platonism new and valuable ways to justify the position on the impossibility of overcoming metaphysics – the apophatic henology. On the other hand, postmodernists criticise Plato for idealism and apology of hierarchical worldview. In this point of view, concept of the One closes to totalitarian mythologies. It is shown that the concept of henology is contradictory, there are several disputable positions about that. Some authors tend to understand the One only as radical structurally indistinguishable apophatic, others, following the tradition of Christian metaphysics, on the con­trary, as a complex system of apophatic and cataphatic character. It is made the conclusion that the systems of henologists in the XX century are united by the attention to ontology in general. Henology thus unites in its dialogue european and russian thought, metaphysical and post-metaphysical, bringing back twentieth-century thinkers to contemplate the foundations of being.

The article delivers a preface to and a commented publication of theses by the famous russian philosopher and classical philologist Alexey Losev (1893–1988) written as he was no more a prisoner of the White Sea – Baltic Canal concentra­tion camp but still lived and worked there. The author puts forward a hypothesis that the text was a preparation for a lecture delivered by Losev in the camp. He shows that Losev continues and elaborates in the manuscript the main ideas of his studies on the history of aesthetics from 1920s, first of all of his GAKHN lectures as well as his book "Dialectics of the artistic form" (1927). At the same time the author demonstrates that Losevs conclusions about the contemporary evolution of art in it's connection with production correspond to some key the­mes of his prosaic fiction from 1930s, particularly of his novels "Meteor" and "Encounter", both written about 1933. In the context of Losevs fiction his theses of 1933 can be read not only as an important source for reconstruction of his aes­thetic theory but also as a document humain that reveals an existential dimension of his philosophy.