Suchergebnisse

This essay takes the challenges posed by a definition of the baroque as model for thinking about the ways in which problems in aesthetic history can shape a philosophy of culture. Attempts to define the baroque as a period within art history have led to an astounding degree of confusion. The search for unifying stylistic markers amid this confusion has led critics to seek deep structures, while historical analyses of the deep structures fail to sustain their connections to style or form. Using the baroque as a model, this essay looks at examples from the visual arts & architecture in order to demonstrate the ways in which deep-structure theories of culture falter by presupposing a more rigid distinction between surface & depth than may be the case. Drawing in part on Deleuze's notion of the fold, this essay proposes that we look at culture as driven by forces that are both materialized in surfaces that are themselves part of any "deep structure.". 10 Figures, 39 References. Adapted from the source document.

The philosophy of culture put forward by Šalkauskis is a version of political philosophy. By using a typology of the relationship between philosophy and democracy we attempt to prove that his philosophy of culture encompasses not one but few different understandings of the relationship between democracy and philosophy. By comparing the ideas of Šalkauskis with the issues of contemporary political philosophy we can see that democracy today is developing by distancing itself from the principles that Šalkauskis presented in his philosophy of culture. The philosophy of culture as developed by Šalkauskis has two distinctive features. First of all, Christianity is interpreted through the matrix of culture and this is why it becomes compatible with democracy. Secondly, philosophy of culture is consciously transformed into ideology and this transformation is what allowed it to become an important factor in political discussions.

Yu.M. Lotman's creative path from philologist to philosopher was difficult and risky. The scientist resolutely moved away from the mossy traditions of Soviet vulgar sociological literary criticism and began to master modern methods of text analysis developed by structuralism and semiotics. Since structuralism and semi­otics were banned in Soviet science as products of bourgeois ideology, Lotman and his colleagues at the Tartu-Moscow School called the subject of their re­search "secondary modeling systems", to which they referred not only literary texts, but also texts of art, texts of behavior, city, history, etc. Thus, a culturologi­cal turn took place in the methodology of Lotman and his associates, which was expressed in the fact that the philosophy of culture became the theoretical basis of structural analysis, and the philosophy of history became the historical and cultural approach. With his works in the field of humanities, Lotman showed that the key to understanding and predicting history is culture, and for building a phi­losophy of history is the philosophy of culture. Lotman actually acted as a pro­found theorist and philosopher of culture on a par with such domestic thinkers as A.F. Losev, M.M. Bakhtin, or foreign ones like O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, K. Levi-Strauss, R. Barth or U. Eco.

The article deals with the relationship of hermeneutics and phenomenology in Arūnas Sverdiolas's philosophy of culture. Firstly what is discussed is the problem of the separation between culture and nature, and then the concept of cultural activity and creation is analyzed. In cultural philosophy it is not enough to reflect on the cultural act of creation. Creation is the discovery of the world's essential forms of expression. Ideas need to be discovered and only then they can be materialized and communicated to others in such an objective way. Therefore, culture must be understood as the communication of meaning. Cultural objects refer not only to the actions that create them, but also to the demands placed on potential perceivers.