Suchergebnisse

The issue of the existence of a peculiarly "Russian" philosophy has long been the object of many debates, which soon led to very different and often opposite conclusions. The question is always the same: Is there an original contribution that Russian authors made to philosophy, in the same way as with literature, arts, and sciences? What happened to Greek/Western philosophy when cultivated in "Russian soil"? In order to answer these questions, it is necessary to first carry out a brief examination of the never-obvious issue of "what being a philosopher means", i.e. of what generally distinguishes an intellectual who claims to be a "philosopher" from other kinds of intellectuals or scholars. After this short but necessary premise, this article will try to sum up some of the classic and modern definitions of Russian philosophy (from Chaadaev to Evlampiev) and conclude by proposing a personal idea about an overarching frame of Russian philosophical thought. In my opinion, the latter mostly originates from a peculiar reception in Russia of Platonism, Idealism and Marxism that ultimately transformed those views, especially during the Silver Age, into a sort of "integral gnoseology", which connects "logos" and "life" in a specifically dialectical way that can be described, pour cause, as "Russian". This "integral gnoseology" ultimately conjoins science and humanism in an original way and is capable of opening up to discreet phenomena and to multiple levels of knowledge.

This article explores the contradictory relationship Lev Shestov had with Vladimir Solovyov's thinking, basing mostly on the main writing that he dedicated to him, i.e. the article «Speculation and Apocalypse. The Religious Philosophy of Vl. Solovyov» of 1927. However harshly critical Shestov's reading of Solovyov may have been, and considering also the objective difference between two philosophers who can hardly be compared, there is still a margin for a positive dialogue between their respective works. This is done in the larger frame of N. Berdyaev's concept of «Russian idea», where their thoughts can be brought closer together in a way that Shestov himself had actually anticipated at the end of his essay on Solovyov. In this respect, as is suggested by an interpretation of the two authors offered by N. Berdyaev and A. Losev, the ultimate meaning of both Solovyov's and Shestov's ideas would converge in an eschatological view of the truth of this world as well as in a fundamental mistrust of the Western epistemological worldview.

"This study spans, in a single monograph, the entire life and work of the Russian philosopher Lev Shestov (1866-1938). It offers keys to understanding his thought, while also tracing the historical itinerary of his work. Shestov's thought is not only interesting in itself, as a "philosophy fighting against philosophy," but also because it reveals an entire world of cultural connections in its extraordinarily keen exploration of other "souls." The reader will find in Shestov some of the sharpest analyses of authors such as Shakespeare, Nietzsche, Tolstoi, Dostoevskii, Luther, Plotinus, Pascal, Kierkegaard and many others. This study will better determine the controversial and fascinating philosopher's place in the history of Russian and Western thought"--

Intro -- Contents -- Foreword -- Preface -- Acknowledgements -- List of Contributors -- Introduction -- The Tilted Pillar: Rozanov and the Apocalypse* -- Apocalyptic Imagery in Dostoevskij's The Idiot and The Devils -- Black Blood, White Roses Apocalypse and Redemption in Blok's Later Poetry -- Apocalypse and Golgotha in Miroslav Krleža's Olden Days Memoirs and Diaries 1914-1921/1922* -- The Apocalyptic Dispersionof Light into Poetry and Music Aleksandr Skrjabin in the Russian Religious Imagination -- Theatre at the Limit Jerzy Grotowski's Apocalypsis cum Figuris -- On Apocalypse, Witches and Desiccated Trees A Reading of Andrej Tarkovskij's The Sacrifice -- List of Works Cited.

ABSTRACT: At the time of Italian Unification, in the mid-nineteenth century, Sardinia was known as one of the most economically and socially archaic parts of the new nation. This article considers family life and women's roles in both the cereal-producing villages and the pastoral mountain communities of Sardinia. Although nuclear family households characterize much of the island, in the pastoral portion of the island strong uxorilocal tendencies are found. The reasons for this, and the reasons for the relative gender equality found in Sardinian marriages are discussed, as is the impact on family life of the privatization of communal lands that took place in the nineteenth century.

At the time of Italian Unification, in the mid-nineteenth century, Sardinia was known as one of the most economically and socially archaic parts of the new nation. This article considers family life and women's roles in both the cereal-producing villages and the pastoral mountain communities of Sardinia. Although nuclear family households characterize much of the island, in the pastoral portion of the island strong uxorilocal tendencies are found. The reasons for this, and the reasons for the relative gender equality found in Sardinian marriages are discussed, as is the impact on family life of the privatization of communal lands that took place in the nineteenth century.