RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY最新文献

{"title":"Classical Eurasianism as a Post-Revolutionary Philosophy","authors":"A. Smirnov","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1868263","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1868263","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Classical Eurasianism (yevraziystvo, 1921-late 1930s, not including Nikolai Gumilev) is a multifaceted set of teachings centered around ideas introduced by Nikolai S. Trubetskoy (1890-1938). Out of the multitudes of Russian emigrant thought, only classical Eurasianism offered a wholesome systematic answer to two basic questions: why did the revolutionary catastrophe of 1917 occur, and what path should Russia follow after it? This answer rests first and foremost on the teachings of Trubetskoy who, since his Europe and Humankind published in 1920, strongly opposed Eurocentrism providing a sophisticated theoretical argument for this conclusion, and insisted on Russia’s returning to its self, to the inherent logic of its culture and its history. Classical Eurasianism elaborated the concept vsechelovecheskoye which had been introduced by Russian thinkers in the early nineteenth century in opposition to obshechelovecheskoye. Both notions point to the universality of the human mind, human culture, and human civilization; but there is a fundamental difference in logical vehicles used to arrive at the universal. The vsechelovecheskoye presupposes “gathering” logically diverse models without imposing any general restriction on them, while the obshechelovecheskoye is an understanding of the universal as grounded in the generic or general, which is well-known to the Western reader. A set of basic philosophic notions of classical Eurasianism related to vsechelovecheskoye include: sobornost’, obshee delo (common work), demotia (direct rule of people), pravashiy otbor (ruling selection), pravda (verity), and others.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"522 - 534"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1868263","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43135243","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Simpleminded Discourse on Enfolding and Unfolding","authors":"A. Smirnov","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1868261","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1868261","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The paradigm of enfolded-unfolded (complicatio-explicatio) introduced by Nicolas of Cusa, poses a puzzling question: why and how are the enfolded and unfolded equal to itself and to each other (coincidentia oppositorum), adding nothing to itself while unfolding, and losing nothing while enfolding? That question had not been answered so far, since European philosophy, science, and thought in general followed a different, linear paradigm of deducing knowledge from first principles. The problem with that paradigm is that the First is always a posed, and therefore arbitrary, piece of knowledge not deduced and not justified by a chain of argument resting on that First principle. This does not violate scientific rationality, though it does contradict philosophy’s strive for final clarity and justification of any of the first principles. As for the enfolded-unfolded paradigm, it does comply with that philosophical quest for the final justification, since it avoids introducing anything arbitrary. This paradigm is elaborated along the lines of the tselostnost’ (integrity, entirety) and svyaznost’ (linkedness, cohesion) categories of Russian thought to provide a rational ground for applying the enfolded-unfolded paradigm in philosophy, the humanities, and the sciences. It opens up a new perspective for studying the human mind as a sense-positing activity without reducing it to brain-and-body neuroprocesses.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"467 - 490"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1868261","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46530994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Translation as the Manufacturing of Meaning: A Few Words about the Title of Ibn Khaldūn’s History","authors":"A. Smirnov","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1868262","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1868262","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Meaning is not a ready-made entity found in dictionaries as signified by a language sign, but rather something which is manufactured through a sense-positing procedure that starts with an initial intuition and runs until the text is written down. This initial intuition may have two interpretations, namely, a substance-based and a process-based readings. This option sets down a bifurcation point on a way towards the text’s final meaning. The translator’s task is, firstly, to understand which of the two possible routes, running from this bifurcation point, the author of the text opted for and, secondly, to accomplish the translation (i.e., to manufacture its meaning) accordingly. The cognitive models adopted by Arabic and Islamic authors serve as markers to highlight the author’s choice. The ẓāhir-bāṭin (“manifest-hidden”) opposition is one of such models which, provided it is correctly interpreted by the translator, enables him/her to adequately reproduce the meaning of the text. This article examines the opening pages of the English, French, and Russian translations of the “Introduction” to Ibn Khaldūn’s “History” which includes its title. It shows how the translators passed the initial bifurcation point and how their option affected the final meaning of their translations.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"491 - 521"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1868262","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46943386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A “Big Culture” and Cogito","authors":"A. Smirnov","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1868260","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1868260","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Cartesian cogito ergo sum is a major milestone for modern European philosophy, which shaped its mainstream for centuries. This dictum states that consciousness is the only reliable object of inquiry, with a criterion of radical doubt, the goal of which is to cut off any unreliable statement leaving only that which is trustworthy and which serves as a starting point to construct true knowledge. Cogito ergo sum is not a syllogism with a missing major premise, for such a premise would not pass this radical doubt criterion. Then, what does justify ergo? To justify it, cogito should be the same as sum, though taken differently. Only in that case ergo adds nothing to undoubted cogito, and cogito ergo sum passes the radical doubt criterion. Nothing to object so far; but why a full stop after sum? Cogito is any activity of my mind. To display activity, I have to be. This is beyond doubt; yet equally I have to be able to act. The universe of total being (total sum) of Parmenides leaves no place for cogito as activity. Therefore cogito ergo sum is possible only on condition of adding et ergo ago, otherwise it is self-contradictory. A cluster of kindred cultures share this or that reading of the cogito formula. This cluster is called ‘Big Culture.’ European culture reads it as cogito ergo sum, while Arabo-Muslim culture reads it as cogito ergo ago.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"457 - 466"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1868260","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42524230","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Andrey Smirnov: The Logic of Sense as a Logic of Culture","authors":"V. Konev","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1868259","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1868259","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article analyzes the philosophical views of the Russian philosopher Andrey V. Smirnov. Smirnov has advanced and substantiated the idea that there exist at least two distinct ways of linking the subject and the predicate in a statement—one of these he calls the substance logic (S-logic) and the other, the process logic (P-logic). S-logic reveals the characteristics (predicates) proper to the subject of the statement, whereas P-logic demonstrates the relationship between the Agent and the Patient—a process in which the predicates become actualized. Each of these logics, according to Smirnov, forms a sense-positing field of a specific culture. Viewing consciousness as the actualization of the intuition of svyaznost’ and tselostnost’ * * The Russian term svyaznost’ is usually rendered in English as ‘cohesion.’ However, this English term does not reveal the specific connotations associated with svyaznost’. A similar semantic difficulty arises with the Russian term tselostnost’ that is often translated into English by using such words as ‘entirety,’ ‘integrity,’ or ‘wholeness,’ neither of which is able to convey an accurate meaning of the word in the original language. Since both terms, svyaznost’ and tselostnost’ are central to understanding of Smirnov’s thought, instead of translating these terms, we decided to use their transliterated forms. – Ed. , Smirnov suggests a novel treatment of the classical problem of philosophy posed long ago by Immanuel Kant: the problem of unity of cogito and the ability to form judgments (the transcendental unity of apperception). The article shows that when we regard the logic of sense as a way of comprehension and action in a world defined by oneness of consciousness and culture, we discover another subject plane in Smirnov’s reasoning—a plane of historical reality. Addressing the task of analyzing globalization processes, the philosopher compares and contrasts the two views of the historical meaning of globalization as represented by the categories of the obshchechelovecheskoe and the vsechelovecheskoe ** ** The vsechelovecheskoe and the obshchechelovecheskoe are the two Russian words that can hardly be rendered into English without distorting their meaning. They both point to the universality of the human mind, human culture, and human civilization, but there is a fundamental difference in logical vehicles used to arrive at the universal. The vsechelovecheskoe presupposes “gathering” logically diverse models without imposing any general restriction on them, while the obshchechelovecheskoe is an understanding of the universal as grounded in the generic or general, which is well-known to the Western reader. Since the obshchechelovecheskoe and the vsechelovecheskoe form a pair of concepts fundamental to Smirnov and to the understanding of his philosophical view, to avoid any misconception, they are used in this and all other articles included in the present special issue in their transliterated form. –Fo","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"439 - 456"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1868259","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47086269","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Back to the Logic of Paradox","authors":"V. S. Bibler","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1863724","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863724","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The author once again offers a definition of paradox that fundamentally differs from a Hegelian notion of contradiction. In a paradox, thought should logically identify and comprehend the mental reproduction of the subject of thought and the object of thought as the nonidentical thought of an unthinkable being. This is why Bibler argues for the emergence of a new logic as the logic of the beginnings of logic, a dialogue of logics whose appearance is due to changing social conditions and a transformation happened in human activity itself. From joint labor, activity becomes universal labor directed at the subject, at which point thinking turns on itself and paradoxes emerge.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"355 - 356"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863724","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47720999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Our Being on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century","authors":"V. S. Bibler","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1863727","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863727","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this excerpt from his celebrated book From the Doctrine of Science to the Logic of Culture (1991), Bibler discusses a break in historical continuity due to fundamental changes in the social sphere. Dictatorships and wars are causing the resettlement of peoples and the need to understand foreign cultures in conjunction with one’s own while at the same time dwelling on the initial concepts of human life: human dignity, morality, and so forth. Interaction between different cultures (Europe, Asia, Africa) is taking place. Differences also exist between them and ancient, medieval, and modern-era European cultures. These interactions are visible in philosophy: We can take Aristotle or Nicholas of Cusa as our own interlocutors, though fundamentally different from us in terms of reasoning. Core changes are taking place in science, as well: Old theory is not being sublated by new theory, by Einstein and Bohr, but is becoming more well-rounded through it, while new theory is experiencing a combination of its ideas of the universal meaning of Galileo’s discoveries. Galileo is no less important than Einstein, and vice versa. The interconnection of various scientific explanations must be included in modern understanding. Reason proceeds from the beginnings of science, moves to the new, and returns to an understanding of reason itself. Science turns to its origins and arrives, oddly enough, in the future, at nonclassical and postclassical physics. Bibler also discusses cultural works that are closely intertwined with the personality of the creator and the audience. In this section, he touches on changes in the nature of labor, which shifts from joint labor to universal (as defined by Marx) when activities toward self-change (that is, creative activity) become decisive.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"359 - 369"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863727","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44385366","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Back to the Problem of Self-Justification. Where Hegel and Feuerbach Left Off . . .","authors":"V. S. Bibler","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1863731","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863731","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this long excerpt, Bibler argues that, in Hegel’s logic, thinking devours the object—the Absolute is achieved—and therefore thinking itself disappears. Yet thinking necessarily involves being, even though it is expressed in a different logic. At this point, the inquiry shifts to the question about the interaction of various logics. Contrary to this, Bibler claims that no meta-logic is required when it comes to justifying the beginning of each logic. This issue was not explicated in Hegel; therefore, his logic has an end. Similarly, Hegel had no rationale for the beginning point of logic, because pure being and nothing do not contain contradictions. Feuerbach tried to introduce dialogue, but his dialogue is that of the thinker with himself, not a dialogue between “I” and “You”; therefore, it does not include the Other and, thus, is not a true dialogue. Rejecting this Duplicate, Feuerbach did not understand the role of the Interlocutor, and so his logic is also mono-logical. The difficulty lies in the attempt to introduce being into logic, and this is possible only if logic is formulated in a different way. Thus, Bibler proposes a different logic, a logic of being, which he interprets as the logic of non-knowledge, the logic of non-understanding. What escapes understanding is no other type of reasoning. For example, medieval reasoning based on religion and its explanations. In it, the world is understood not as object but as inherent in God. In modern-era European thought, when one thinks, one just as necessarily includes both what one understands and what one does not understand in one’s knowledge of the object, as Kant wrote: “The unconditional is located in things, because we do not know them.” In this regard, Bibler praises the logic of Nicholas of Cusa, who includes scientific ignorance in his explanations. The value of Descartes’ and Spinoza’s logics are also briefly examined here, along with the transition to justifying a new logic.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"396 - 418"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863731","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43782258","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Twentieth Century and the Phenomenon of Culture","authors":"V. S. Bibler","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1863728","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863728","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this excerpt, Bibler dissects the dual connection of past and present through sublation of the past in the present and on the basis of its preservation through their interaction. Culture is built on the second principle; communication of achievements and inventions always takes place despite different time periods. In that context, he considers Bakhtin’s discovery that showed how artistic heroes of one era enter into debate, a dialogue with heroes of another era, arguing the same problems with them. Oedipus, for example, addresses the problem of life’s meaning differently than Hamlet, and Hamlet differently than Anna Karenina, but they can disagree over which approach is more correct. He analyzes history in the same plane of interaction. For Bakhtin, culture develops on the boundaries of cultures. Culture in general, according to Bibler, is defined as the universal meaning and purpose of being.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"370 - 377"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863728","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48251490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Kant Peers into the Mid-Twentieth Century—Kant Peers into the Seventeenth Century","authors":"V. S. Bibler","doi":"10.1080/10611967.2020.1863719","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863719","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this excerpt, Vladimir S. Bibler attempts to demonstrate how the initial concepts of Newtonian mechanics are fraught with contradictions. The first is related to the law of inertia, which states that a body will resist change by an external influence; this means that the body is endowed with its own active force and that, being self-sufficient, it does not enter into external relations with other bodies. Location (space), however, is also part of these relations. If there are no relations, then space does not exist in Newtonian mechanics. Kant therefore suggests a different world that would possess a different space and many geometries. Bibler argues that Kant’s work approaches the basic principles of future Einsteinian physics, where space is a phenomenon of gravity. Developing this argument, Bibler concludes that Einstein’s mechanics seem to bring Newtonian mechanics to their logical culmination.","PeriodicalId":42094,"journal":{"name":"RUSSIAN STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY","volume":"58 1","pages":"323 - 337"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2020-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10611967.2020.1863719","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41423584","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}