2016, Vol. 2, No. 1.
FROM THE EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
The article reveals a difference in the interpretation of the concept of identity in classical and postmodern philosophy. The author shows that this theme has appeared in the history of European philosophy after the publication of the worksof J. Locke and D. Hume. The complexity of the problem is that it involves two opposite conditions – identity and changeability. Locke interprets identity as some substance or a set of specific characteristics, which possessa certain regularity. Therefore, you can evaluate theclassical version of identity as a variant of the philosophical consciousness of modern age, especially clearly represented in educational philosophy. This approach is consistent with the general cognitive aim of classical philosophy – to find behind the number of differences a certain identity. Locke shows the complexity and multidimensionality of the problem, especially inconsistent cognition of objects, living creatures and finally human himself. He notes that in inanimate nature and even in the animal kingdom, the identity often is obvious and intact. However, in relation to the man these statements lose their value. First, man is conscious and endowed with a complex structure.
Really, what is the basis of human identity? According to Freud, such foundation is the body. However, man is still the soul and spirit. They can also serve as indicators of human identity. In other words, the man is original, unique. To analyze a particular person by the same standards is impossible. For example, you can to conceive the identity of only one soul in different people. However, according to Locke nothing prevent the same individual spirit to connect with different bodies. The philosopher is critical to the idea of metempsychosis. Even if we admit such transformation of a man into animal, no one would ever consider, for example, the pig human. The identity of a person is determined by different components (body, soul, spirit), and these components are difficult to combine and, therefore, any identity can appear fragile, ephemeral, contradictory. John Locke, however, is concerned not so much with the differenceof the components of the idea of a man as with finding their identities. The criterion for such bonding is according to Locke the notion of personality.
The author shows that in the historical-philosophical tradition developed two criteria for determining the identity of man. According to the first criterion, a necessary and sufficient condition is corporal identity, according to the second criterion – the identity of consciousnessstates. In most cases, these criteria complement each other. However, conflicting situations are possible (for example, a "body exchange" between a cobbler and a prince,described by Locke). Then the question arises, what criterion, corporal or spiritual, takes precedence?
Locke and Hume's concepts of personality are widely known as the classic examples of the analysis of this problem. All subsequent applications to the problem of individual sameness of the bodies come from their achievements, though expressed by them in a negative form.
The article raises the question: what ensures the consistency in the identity process– personality, spirituality, consciousness? In modern philosophical literature, the concept of personality is associated with socialization, spirituality or responsibility. It is clear that theindividual, who breaks the law, puts himself outside the society, hardly deserves the name of "personality." However, the error of such examinations is that these personality’s attributes are assessed as associated. Relatively speaking, the personality has responsibility, and therefore, has socialization. Moreover, if it acts on behalf of the society, then you can call it spiritual. In fact, these attributes often are not arranged in a line. Socializationof personality can mean the ultimate and mindless conformism. Spirituality does not always imply the unconditional "fit" into society. Socrates, as you know,has obtained the death sentence "on behalf of society". Is there reason to deny the spirituality of an ascetic or a hermit? Can we consider a Buddhist to be “non-person” only because he avoids social problems?
The author also discusses the concept of Peter Strawson, a prominent representative of analytical philosophy. The article analyzes different interpretations of personality. In modern language, the personality is something that applies to human beings in general and opposes to thing. The personality is a "goal in itself"; and the value of things depends onusing them for our purposes; the personality should not be used as aninstrument for any purpose. The personality is a being with legal rights and duties. The personality is the one who plays the social role and performs certain functions. Another necessary condition for these basic meanings of the word "personality" is the following: a personality is a being, which is conscious of its identity through time.
The article points at the desacralization and devaluation of the personalityas a character of our epoch. Since postmodern consciousness affirms the acceptance of plurality and relativity in all circumstances, the personality is crushed and desacralized. Inherent internal multiplicity prevents itfrom exercising its sensitivity and openness to other people. The personality inevitably becomes asocial. Instead of the desired consistency, the individual revealsthe desire to fit intosocial conjuncture. It is difficult for him to ensure the internal coherence of his ownimages. Can we say that the given individual is the same person he was a year ago, a day ago, a minute ago? In other words, what allows us to distinguish one person from another? What determines the conditional consistency of the personality? And here comes another consideration. The personality is able to secure its unity through time. In other words, unlike the "man without qualities", personality is able not only to gain valuable qualities, but also to keep them within a certain time.
The article also notes that in our days people do not want to be themselves, they are looking for another race, another nation or gender. Individuals are tired from their own gender, they dream to change it. You can often meet effeminate men and masculine womenin contemporary culture. A white man wants to be an African; a black wants to be white. Inter-ethnic marriages are not uncommon, religious tolerance overcomes the passionate attachment to one’s own cult. In case of defining own identity, when the voice of the blood, of the earth or of the culture is shakyarise difficulties. Postmodernists are talking about the “zero-identity”. Increasingly we found a "man without qualities" (Musil), the individual with undeveloped consciousness and psychics, that often creates difficulties for attribution of certain people.
Keywords: human nature, identity, identity, impermanence, body, soul, spirit, consciousness, personality, socialization
The term anthropo-, socio- and culture genesis, which reflects the indissoluble unity of the processes of human evolution, cultural socium (society) and culture, is increasingly used by philosophers and cultural scientists, but uniform illumination of anthropo-, socio-, and cultural genesis is still missing. Traditionally, anthropo-, socio- and cultural genesis was covered in the religious doctrines, where the fundamental role played the Holy Spirit (Parental Love), beloved parents — the bearers of all the benefits, the holders of the Higher Forces and Higher Mind. They reproduced a man-made universe, the source of our environment, and ensured our primordial being, socialization, enculturation at certain period of our life, so-called Golden Age. A false understanding of traditional teachings contributed to the emergence of a widespread theory of implements of trade that became the theoretical basis of many sciences, designed to explore the cradle of humankind (mother’s hands), the culture of human, but not the culture of stone, bronze and iron. We may rightly call this theory mechanistic or technocratic.
In the framework of the mechanistic doctrine emerged erroneous views on the material production, on the basic forms of labor activities, which ensure the reproduction of the species. Material production exists wherever there are mothers, so there is no reason to deny the existence of animal breeding among the animals, and of aviculture among birds. Within the scope of animal breeding and aviculture, the production of food, the construction of dwellings, and the educational processes take place. At the origin of these forms of labor activity is the parental instinct, which is by its nature social, because it provides the natural formation of society "mother-child". It is the maternal instinct that gave rise to the education, culturological process, so there is no reason to oppose social and cultural to biological.
Generalized and generalizing (consolidating), the labor theory of anthropo-, socio-, and cultural genesis, substantiated by the author of this article in a number of books, considers as the basic forms of the labor activity not cultivating of the tools of labor, but the cultivation of human, originated by maternal instinct. It is the mother's care, and not care about the stone, bronze and iron allows us to shed light on the origins of the deliberate health concern that gave rise to medicine, costume, cuisine, architecture, etc. The cultivation of human and not the treatment of the stone brought to life a wide range of modelling systems: language, fairy tale, myth, ritual, art. The process of inculturation and socialization, traditionally used by mothers in the earliest stages of anthropo-, socio-, and cultural genesis, allows us not only to shed light on the origins of these systems, but also to understand the meaning of the traditional teachings about human nature, society, and culture. Such an understanding makes extremely difficult the free interpretation of these teachings that is an inexhaustible source for generating pseudo-scientific doctrines and for attacks on science.
Keywords: philosophy, anthropo-, socio-, and cultural genesis, generalized theory, parental instinct, parental labor, education, culture, culturing of human, cultural socium, modelling systems
The article is based on the fieldwork conducted by the author on the north of Taiwan in 2008-2009 in purpose to study the possibility of stable Eurasian mythology symbols existence in the Taiwan “Temple of Eighteen Deities”. In the current article, which is devoted to that broad topic, I limit myself solely on the parallels among the Taiwan temple symbolism and images of Russian folklore. Despite in the whole study there were detected a number of symbols with such parallels – “otherworld”, “dog”, “boat”, “crossing the waters”, “grave”, ‑ because of volume limitations they will be demonstrated only on example of one image, image of “dog”. As the source for the analyses Russian fairy tales from A.N. Afanasyev were chosen.
Key words: collective unconscious, archetype, popular religion, mythological symbol, stable symbols set, Taiwan, Russian fairy tale, image, Eurasia-Pacific cultural unity, excarnation
In modern times (last 100-150 years), the influence of science and technology increases on society, not only the utilitarian influence (on production, on the organization of social life), but also on the ideology, just the science becomes ideology (J. Habermas). Thus the question arises, what is the relationship between science, scientific ideology and traditional political forms of ideology (socialism, liberalism, conservatism). For example, this article describes three social systems – of O. Comte, of E. Durkheim and of A.A. Bogdanov. These positivist sociologists were closest in contact with science and with the science of sociology in particular. Parallel to this was the polemic with Karl Mannheim, who had laid the foundations of modern conceptions of ideology as expression of the interests of certain social groups.
Auguste Comte was one of the founders of the science of sociology, for him it was the complete of the natural sciences. The result was the elimination of the deep differences of natural philosophy from the moral philosophy accepted since the time of Plato and Aristotle. The ideology of Conte was an expression of the interests of the whole society, not even of the state, but of mankind. So was formed Conte’s new ideology of solidarity, the promotion of the public good should be predominant in it.
E. Durkheim, following Comte, stood on the positions of the scientific study of society, but the bearer of public interest for him were, on the one hand, family and professional association, on the other hand, the state. At the end of his life he spoke about socialism, but his socialism was special, he rejected the principle of equality, but appreciated the impact of the group on the individual and therefore can be considered close to the ideology of solidarity.
The third form of the science of sociology and ideology of solidarity, which is seen in this article, it is empiriomonism of A.A. Bogdanov. He insisted on the integrity of human experience, both natural and social. For centuries there were processes of convergence of different sciences, but at the stage of machine production there appeared a chance to overcome the specialization and anarchy, to submit sciences and social experience to the principle of monism. Like Comte, Bogdanov thought in the scale of humanity, whose task was considered the organization of all its forces for the struggle with nature, to establish the power of labor over it. Bogdanov was a brilliant mouthpiece of the idea of solidarity, though, being an unorthodox Marxist, recognized the principle of equality.
It is considered that sociology is a theoretical construction which contains the political view of a certain segment of the population at its present and future. Ideologies of examined social theories pretend to be scientific and to express the interests of large human conglomerates, lately they are getting stronger, while traditional political ideologies are blurred (blurred communism, blurred socialism, and nationalism is experiencing attacks of ethnic groups, etc.). Reality demonstrates the multiplicity of ideologies, but a holistic knowledge doesn’t give the relative synthesis of different ideologies (Mannheim), but the ideology derived from scientific knowledge of society. The author is far from the idealization of scientific ideologies, though they had the form of an ideology of solidarity, but we must be aware of their impending force and its pros and cons.
Keywords: sociology, science, partial ideology, monolithic ideology, scientific ideology, the state, humanity, society, the individual, solidarity
The article provides O’Shaughnessy’s paper presented at the conference dedicated to Melanie Klein and the problem of the Oedipus complex (London, 1987). As a representative of a group of post-Kleinian analysts the author pays great attention to the study of unconscious fantasies, which in her opinion are the basis of all psychic processes. The author makes her mission to give a very clear interpretation of the unconscious fantasies that arise in the process of transference and countertransference.
Developing the ideas of Freud and Klein, the author shows that going through the oedipal period can be so threatening to a young child that he will try to avoid it. This might be caused, for example, by depression in early childhood. Even as an adult such patient seeks to protect himself and keep the Oedipus complex invisible, which significantly complicates the work of the analyst. The author emphasizes that this does not mean that the complex is absent, it is still present in the form of a threat against which the defense is made. The effect of the invisible Oedipus complex in clinical practice can be seen in two stories described in the article.
Keywords: philosophical anthropology, psychoanalysis, the Oedipus complex, transference, projective identification, object relations, oedipal triangle, combined parents figure, defense mechanisms, sexual object splitting
The material of the article is worldviews of Russian philosophers from XIX – to the middle XX century, mainly religious of them, upholding the tradition and historical development of views from early slavophils and Vladimir Solov’ev up to the representatives of religious Renaissance, among them especially Nicolai Berdyaev. V.V. Lazarev tries to show why in the learning about Good and Evil in early Slavophils the Evil appears only as reduced level of Good. Their Evil is neither Substantial, nor Absolute. It is only the absence of Good and is nothing by itself. Nothing Substantial is opposed to Good. Such is the manner of settling Monism in early Slavophils. Their Monism is not only ethical, it is wider, it embraces the Cosmic view. The cognitive situation of Westerners is quite different. In their learning Evil appears almost as one more Substance, equal with Good, and creates dualism in moral and in knowledge.
The early Slavophils are aimed to reach the Whole. They don’t mention, that such intention may not be accomplished without the real presence of the Whole. And if the Whole is present, what is the sense of the aim as intention to reach it? It means that real beginning point in early Slavophilism is not the Whole, but something out of it, and the Whole itself is only the aim and has no real existence.
Slavophilism comparatively easily switches off antinomy at the very beginning, when it penetrates into consciousness and does not allow to be developed in it. Antinomism, being criticised, as well as ethical and cognitive dualism in western trend of Russian philosophy, is something empty, because Evil has no real existence. Even V. Solov’ev, who in early period of his philosophical development upholds the tradition of Slavophils, hides antinomism deeply in his soul as if the evil had no real existence at all. His first word is the Whole without contradiction, and everything in his learning is included into the organism of the Whole. It was closely connected with monism of early Slavophils. But being excluded from conscience (like in Khomjakov’s version) or reduced (in the manner of Solov’ev), antinomy does not disappear, but settles into sub-conscience and from this depth sends signs of its existence. Religious Renaissance as the later form of Slavophil’s learning, comes to understanding, that the primary Whole in consciousness of each great philosopher in its deep ground inevitably contains antinomy.
To the consciousness of opposers to the analyzed direction of philosophers, everything, on the contrary, appears as separated from each thing and innerly divided. Primary for them is dualism of God and World, of person and Nature, as well as dualism of idea and reality. In the surrounding world and in our souls nothing is absolute, everything is relative. Do we need to mention about Good and Evil?
Should we take as the beginning of research the undeletable Whole (keeping in mind the highest existence: the Trinity in one Christian God; or, let it be one of other cases: the organic unity of Truth, Good and Beauty)? Or we must start from this or that separated abstract side of the whole, contrary to its concrete unity? The deviating and contraposed points of view mainly between Westerners and Slavophils are given in the article not for immediate accepting or rejecting vaulting judgements, but for finding antinomies. Antinomies were something usual and normal for Orthodox Religion, even vital and inevitable for creative life as the air for breathing. The feeling of paradox gave rise and growth of spiritual energy. The best example is the Christian feeling in one: Golgotha and resurrection of Christ. One can notice the same antinomism in the reception by Christians the dogmas of their religion. But quite the same, without any intention to use their religion, demonstrates to us non-confessional life of the soul, which doesn’t reject, for example, such feeling as sainthood, not connecting it with religious belief, though this feeling is unconsciously founded on it.
There exist at least three kind of relation to antinomy. 1) The researchers stop in front of it and do not move further, just note the fact of it without any analysis and do not try to decide the problem. 2) Accept only one side of it, rejecting another one, the contrary. 3) To take into consideration just antinomy itself, and, making it vital for son soul, with the help of the thought surpassing dualism, attempt to connect it with super-rationalism, which covers in itself the phenomenon of paradox. In this trend of development from the early Slavophils to the epoch of Religious Renaissance the most important are acknowledged the gains of F.M. Dostoevskij and V.S. Solov’ev. The corresponding historical process in Russia in spiritual sphere is marked by keen tragedy of life, felt by both of them in their deep philosophical manner. N.A. Berdyaev understood this tragism as the transitive situation, previous to his own philosophy of tragic; moreover: as the disclosing of tragic in Philosophy as such and as the tragic in the World History itself, which is really full of tragic antinomies and paradoxes. Their character is such that it is impossible to isolate oneself from them. They must not only be acknowledged but we should interiorise them in our soul and make them our destiny, try to decide them with belief in success. The thinkers, who belonged to the epoch of Religious Renaissance, posed and directed their philosophic strength to the elaboration and decision of idea, which got the name antinomic monodualism.
Keywords: Berdjaev, Zen'kovsky, monism, monodualism, paradox, slavophilism, V. Solov'ev, tragism, Divine Trinity, Khomiakov
This article is devoted to two great figures of European culture – Lou Andreas-Salomé and Friedrich Nietzsche. Fate has bound them as like-minded thinkers. For many years they maintained a friendship and theoretical unanimity. This article illustrates that mutual love can sublimate itself in joint work, in search of new ideas and concepts.
Nietzsche was, apparently, the first philosopher, who introduced the theme of suffering in philosophical discourse. Of course, in the history of philosophy were attempts to analyze this feeling. But Nietzsche gave a detailed phenomenology of this experience, suffering its different embodiments literally. First of all, he tried to glorify suffering, noting the ability of this sense to facilitate the ascent of the soul. However, he convincingly showed that it was not only the aspiration to spiritual heights. On the contrary, suffering is often associated with revenge and malice. Such a paradoxical combination of internal psychological states would later be called masochism.
But Nietzsche was not only a researcher of introspective world of man. He has also created a peculiar concept of man which can be called apophatic. The meaning of this philosophical-anthropological version was that: the enlightening elevation of a man is not justified. Man is a creature that combines contradictory features. In other words, each of us is a creature and Creator, each of us is clay, dirt, nonsense, chaos.
As for Salome, she, too, was not alien to philosophy. She quickly grasp new ideas and was able not only reproduce them, but also greatly enrich these thoughts with her own bright reflection. So, the philosopher and his female friend have tender feelings to each other. Even if the relationship between Nietzsche and Salomé was limited to common interest in romantic poetry, this meeting would have left a deep trace in Nietzsche’s soul. But the influence of Salome on the works of the philosopher was more profound. This led Nietzsche to think about the justification of suffering in the life of every person, because without it, human existence would lose its charm.
The article also shows that Nietzsche dreamed about marriage with Lou, but she wasn't ready to force their own views to create such an alliance. This “non-realized duo” left a deep mark on Nietzsche’s soul. It largely determined the tragic sight of the philosopher on the problems of life and impacted on the world of his feelings. Nietzsche eventually began to poeticize loneliness, his work showed his views that he expressed maliciously and passionately. Love, as shown in the article is able to inspire people, to inspire their work and give it spiritual depth and originality. Without amorous feelings between Friedrich Nietzsche and Lou Salomé and their long-term joint work, it is unlikely that Nietzsche would have reached the heights which we acknowledge now. But Lou also would not become a famous writer and psychoanalyst without meeting with Nietzsche.
The authors analyze the theme of suffering in pre-Nietzschean historical-philosophical tradition. It is known that Kant, like Nietzsche, was thinking about why suffering attracts some people. However, the German thinker did not consider this experience as a paradoxical combination of morbid states and pleasure, which the individual receives from such feelings. Kant considered the suffering and joy separately, not denoting their mutual attraction. Kant believed that no one wants another to experience suffering to feel his own well-being. Nietzsche first saw in pain a special kind of pleasure. The sufferer derives pleasure from the fact that he causes pain to the other and thus feels his superiority. Therefore, the suffering does not disappear, but rather multiplies.
It is necessary to have special intellectual insight to guess in suffering such emotional states as malice and desire to hurt. Traditional ethics interpreted human emotions as stable and transparent. Suffering is one thing, and malice is quite another. The sufferer deserves a sympathy and pity, and evil people – no. However, Nietzsche’s anthropological instinct shows that these conditions intersect and find the opposite meaning. Malice may transform into compassion and suffering may bring pleasure, inflicting pain on other people. Actually, people often have fun hurting other people with "a small fraction of malice".
The analysis of Salome’s reasoning about Nietzsche, by which she tried to give readers a more accurate idea of the spiritual world of the philosopher, is of great interest. She eventually became the interpreter of his work and his personality. The authors raise the question: why exactly Lou Salomé acts as a commentator of Nietzsche's ideas? What allows her to understand the caracter of the philosopher and his thirst for suffering? The article put forward the idea that Lou Salomé gave a very objective and accurate assessment of the philosopher’s personality and the meaning of his ideas. There was always the shadow of the great philosopher behind all writings of Salome. Lou Salomé testified that all ideas that Nietzsche developed or left for further consideration, were largely the story of his inner life, his inner struggle. Such a conclusion can venture only one who knew Nietzsche not only by his writings. Lou Salomé, presumably, had that right not only as a friend of Nietzsche, but also as a versatile researcher.
The contribution of Nietzsche to the philosophical interpretation of suffering is priceless. Undoubtedly, the attempt of the philosopher to recreate the world based on his own soul could not help searching of personal introspection. This in turn led Nietzsche to the suffering from himself, to the discontent with himself. This is what has formed, according to Lou, the fundamental principle of his spiritual being.
Keywords: philosophical anthropology, human existence, human nature, Nietzsche, Salomé, love, suffering, freedom, malice, loneliness
PHENOMENON OF THE DEANTHROPOLOGISATION OF MAN
During the long period of its formation, philosophy in the face of great thinkers was developing the conceptual schemes to describe the realities of the world and to find in them the man. Lately in philosophy, there has been some tendency of separation from the main characters of this world pattern. First, we lost along with Nietzsche substance of God, then in the works of R. Bart died the author of the text, then M. Foucault announce the loss of the substance of man, and now we have to part with language.
In 2014 on the screens appeared film of French director J.-L. Godard "Goodbye to language", which found a broad response in the philosophical circles and resulted in publication of collected papers of contemporary Russian philosophers, discussing the theoretical concept of the "Goodbye to language". One of the main ideas of almost all the thinkers is this: we need the language to be among the others and to feel the reality, but not to be themselves. According to modern philosopher F.I. Girenok, this need is in reality associated with the lack of imagination that is the true essence of man, tracing his presence in the world. The philosopher emphasizes that the director managed to show a movie with no relation to reality, to what requires image, expression, instruction, and so frees us from language, from words, from symbolic nature in favor of imagination. Modern man is so sick of all constructs, which hung on him, he is already so removed from nature, stopped to hear it and now is ready to become like an animal that doesn't know the burden of the language and is not ashamed of his natural state.
However, will it be really the cure for modern man to return to nature, to leave the language and to refuse all bonuses of civilization? As the thinkers write, man cannot return to nature, for it is not dreaming, not imagining, but a movie is about it. All the authors emphasize that the film does not teach how to live, but encouraged to imagine and to think, for only philosophers can think in spite of reason, and only philosophers constantly need to say something new that hasn't been spoked, since thought is not a reflection of reality. Who lives in the world of things and of reality has no need to think, he has everything, because thought, especially philosophical thought, by its nature is always out of this world and in this sense it is crazy
Then how is it possible to find a person without a soul and essence? The person that abandoned the speech? How to detect the traces of man? Modern philosophical anthropology takes up this challenge – to find a human being, identify it and build a new anthropology, based on the current reality.
Such theoretical constructs have appeared today and began detecting traces of man. It is S. Horujy’s project of synergic anthropology "of human boundaries", with emphasis on the tradition of Hesychasm; V. Varava’s project "the man, inquiring God"; S. Smirnov’s "man of transition", where all around remain in the cultural pause, when there is nothing already and there is nothing yet; F. Girenok’s "autistic man" that frees my existence from the need to refer to another existence; V. Podoroga’s new "anthropology without man" where a person is detected only by the traces left in art, objects and texts; visual anthropology and other projects of the man without essence.
The analysis of these conceptions allows to say, that the reason of man is found in himself and not in the Other; this gives us opportunity to talk about non-linguistic human nature, because the language is to protect the inner world from the Other, and this is why the language loses its necessity. Therefore, if man does not need the Other to know himself, so goodbye for language, and we can find human traces only in the pre-literal.
An important merit of the philosophy of postmodernism is the ability to see the difference between homo pensantis and homo sapiens; a homo sapiens needs the language to articulate and organize the world, but the thought has completely different nature, some chaotic quality. However, the modern world needs order and significance, and therefore needs homo sapience, and not pensantis, so to find the man's trace is a challenging task.
If it is extremely difficult to find a new thought today, how else can we find human traces? By the opinion of the authors of the above-mentioned book, we can do it with the help of imagination and therefore all that it implies. It is the world of images and symbols, a world of literal and naive vision, of silence and pause. These unmarked forms remind us of the presence of the human in man. Although in the modern world the culture dehumanizes man, creates the space of simulacra and of inner emptiness, naivety and literalness bring the human image and the human himself back.
Therefore, the speech, once emerged, on the one hand, have identified and named us, and on the other, gives us the ability to be hidden from the others, unspoken, hidden, because everything that happens to us is only an appearance of what we have inside. And the mission of philosophy now is not to be the final element of the world as Hegel taught, but to find traces of a homo pensantis in imagination, silence, symbol, thought and become a new spiritual and creative form of thinking and sense generating of man impossible in today's reality.
Keywords: man, nature, imagination, impossibility, essence, silence, literality, speech, language, symbol
The counterpoint to this article was the circulation of the core concepts of the modern philosophy, which include space-time and body-words, and the leitmotif was the development of the concept of conversion-transgression itself carried out through overtones of circulation-words (language), values (gifts), soul (to Another and into-another). "Circulation", projected on the shell of "time" in cyclicity is more clear, and moving to the "axial time" doesn’t lose its connection with quality content of event, dividing on the external form, linking of different quality processes by mechanical chronology, and the internal structure or post-structural properties, given the reflective transformation carried out in recent decades.
Such attempts of through binding are not new. In a certain sense they can be characterized in the following words of J. Baudrillard: "The reversibility of the gift is manifested in the ‘gifting back’, the reversibility of exchange in the sacrifice, the reversibility of time in the cycle, the reversibility of production in the destruction, the reversibility of life in death, the reversibility of each language element and meaning in the anagram... Everywhere it takes for us the form of extermination and death. This is the symbolic form. It is not mystical and not structural ‑ it is just inevitable" (from "Symbolic exchange and death"). Not taking his position as a whole, the author tries to rethink the position of Baudrillard, starting from his descriptive references.
Source point for the author was "impulse-to-whole", that in post-modernity was inclined to the destructive rejection in the apologetics of destruction. Passing through the history of thought, this impulse is gradually drawn to the subject, taking above all romantic meaning. It has long been imputed to the being, in recent times increasingly taking over his features. "The impulse-to-whole" is a good interlude to the theme of being-towards-death, but in different variations it cannot settle in retrospect. However, it tempts by its psychological transparency: non manifested (to consciousness) being leads and directs existence, and realizes itself in the dictate of text- unconscious, of text, arranged in structural sense by semantics and by lexical completeness, experienced originally in the "house of being" (J. Lacan).
The time from the viewpoint of explication appears to be happen-as-perceived, it loses itself in nav’-not-sleep (in oblivion-displacement of the forever-found-here). Plebeian "reality" intrudes into the elitist transparency (of text) by the dictatorship of the space (unity of time and place), dissipating the golden dream of creation by unambiguous-signified (by word-command, under which are stretched bulk of necessity: of coherence, of coordination, of matter).
The future is outlined by unconscious-text, by flight of Stygian swallow of word in the cave the shapelessness; the actual falls in light of the revelation as in the shell of words, gives to eidos-not-conscious-non-existent the body-speech. The being is realized in the actual because it already existed in genuine, once-presented eternal world of ideas, now transformed in the space of the narrative with its impulses-structures. These unconscious dreams of the text become real in recall, dooming the advancing obsessions-shapes. It returns to the structure of “here-”being as being "ready," but cut in a body – in an early dense fabric of matter, vulnerable light fabric of flesh. This coarse canvas, according Heidegger, is the original (here-), and initially aspiring to the fullness (of being). But this isn’t like this from the viewpoint of the gray realities of anthropology and ethnography. In the abstract “here-” its imputed inferiority leads to the two invectives: of the impulse of “here-” to being-fullness and of the impulse of being to localize “here-” as timeliness and appropriateness. The pamphlet of utmost simplification should not cross out the designated by them alternative: “being” in the projection at the beginning of history is findable and foreseeable, “here-” is ephemeral and receives the face and the texture (of the individual or of the person, of the subject or of the autonomy) for millennia. The impulse “here-” to being is tragic (Heidegger) and cathartic (Aristotle); the impulse of being to “here-” is ontological, while its plane of expression transforms it into the comic / travesti.
The presumption in relation to the source of autonomy naturally gives rise to the spiritualism of the structure; “here-”doesn’t need the selfless being, but rushes to it meaningfully; yet "consciousness (das Bewusstsein) can never be anything other than conscious being (das bewusste Sein)..." [K. Marx], and being “up-” and “before-” consciousness indicates the impulse of existence to “here-”. If so, in being “here-” is no autonomy; it is original-being (such as exists-being) and initially overcomes the abstraction on non-cleared basis. But the source of the anthropological specifics is original, and in this source the autonomy is something quite late; “here-” being, if we find the analogy, may not be prefaced itself as the autonomy. This autonomy is acquired historically, and taking into account this obvious fact, the scheme of the impulse should be topsy-turned: “here-” being isn’t initially directed to being, but originally (common), and source ecstatic being directed to the autonomous-individual “here-” being, which realizes in itself the deployment of "now" (in a wide range of timeliness-appropriateness, which over time encompassed the whole world (into world-circle). So now-simultaneity re-encodes itself, losing the metaphysical timelessness and transforming into the self-fulfilling probe, into the conductor-being, and his body in the (increasingly multiple) “present”, variously-distinguished-coherent).
First deconstruction leads to subsequent reactions. Martin Heidegger establishes attitude of being-towards-death, alternative to the original impulse. But their relation is not obvious; being-towards-death is affirmed as a psychological givenness, without kinship with the desire to the fullness. Generally speaking, the closing of the motives of "impulse" (to being) with "being-towards-death" is fraught with cheap enough rigorism. Heidegger wisely doesn’t close them in a common logical field, avoiding the truism of self-sacrifice by means of dissolving in the common being.
At the dawn of history the required (impulse) replaces natural stimuli, represents a perversion (psychiatry), motive (ontology), exchange gifts (the society and exchange economy arose in its bowels), power (sovereignty), holiness (obsession), etc. This, however, does not give to the required the right to (metaphysical) substantiality, but outlines the place of motivation, which in certain conditions is more demanding and urgent than listed above.
The beginning of history is marked by panopticon of motives affecting being, but in fact preceding it and investing the relations of being to “here-”. The being in anticipation of the will, the mind and the ego indicates the source, which in positive interpretation could take roots only in the field of (adaptive-conditioned) desires (materialism) or in innate idea (certain modifications of spiritualism). The third specific desire, which found satisfaction in prolonging the satisfaction, specific satisfaction is dissatisfaction, the transformation of desire in the motif, this unusual game in satisfaction and satisfaction from this game.
This specific satisfaction attached to the desires in their naturalistic iteration (of needs, libido, Thanatos) as motivation converts desire, subordinating the motive and the reality dissolved-lost in it in circulation, the universal form of the time-being.
Keywords: circulation, time, being, text, language, structure, transgression, post-structuralism, being “here-”, body
SCIENCES OF MAN
The article discusses the idea of God’s death from the point of view of philosophical anthropology. Examining in detail the history of the formation of this concept the author notes that its intellectual cradle are the culture of the Renaissance and the philosophy of the New time, the quintessence of which is the statement of L. Feuerbach that the mystery of theology lies in anthropology. In other words, Feuerbach proclaims God the projection of human subjectivity. The author shows that the well-known thesis of F. Nietzsche "God is dead" is preceded by almost a century of reflection on the idea of the death of God, in particular by German thinkers Jean Paul, Hegel, and Heine. The author notes that in the twentieth century the reduction of the figure of God is characteristic of psychoanalysis, existentialism, philosophy of postmodernism, philosophy of sacred. The author notes two trends in the interpretation of the figure of the God in modern thought – utilitarianism and the philosophy of the so-called theological turn. According to the author, these trends are not different in a fundamental attitude, but in the degree of sincerity in disclosing their position. Advocates of utilitarianism openly impose their atheistic premises; the advocates of philosophy of the theological turn are trying to obscure the desire to reduce the absolute transcendent God.
In the key section, the author examines the main modern interpretations of the idea of death of God. She identifies eight of such interpretations: 1. The death of God as the death of metaphysics; 2. The death of God as the death of meaning; 3. The death of God as the birth of the Autonomous body. 4. The death of God as the atheism of God; 5. The death of God as the total embodiment; 6. The death of God as the death of teleology; 7. The death of God as immanentism; 8. The death of God as the death of a man. Examining each of these interpretations separately, the author shows the problematic points in their argument. In particular, the identification of the idea of the death of God and the death of metaphysics itself provides the reduction of the figure of God, as metaphysics deals with the term supersensible, leaving out the figure of the concrete living God.
In Nancy’s approach, the death of God marks the birth of the Autonomous body. To the discourse built on binary oppositions "body-soul", "physical-psychic", "transcendental-immanent", "meaning-flesh", "internal-external" and so on, Nancy contrasts the discourse of the Body, that conceals such binarism. The event of the death of God, according to Nancy, means that one configuration of the Body substitutes another configuration of the Body. However, the presented ontology eliminates the idea of man and the idea of God, or "the heavens" with inherent autonomy, as Nancy says. Man, as well as "heaven", is impossible in a world without ontological gaps, in a world of total matter. Autonomy is inherent only in transcendence. Therefore, Nancy’s idea of "God's body" is incompatible with the world of the self-configurating Body.
The interpretation of the words of Christ on the cross "My God, my God! Why hast Thou forsaken me?" (Matt 27:46), as well as the interpretation of the death of God as His total incarnation are built on the original ignoring of the idea of absolute God, on the reduction of the Trinity to Christ. Another interpretation of the words of Christ on the cross refers to the idea of suffering, not paid by sense. Christ with the words "Father, why hast Thou forsaken me?" addresses to the transcendent God, questioning his teleology. Taking upon himself in his death the suffering and meaninglessness of the world, he becomes a radical response to the otherworldly God of sense. However, the appeal to the meaninglessness of suffering and the comparison of Christ with the Job do not correspond to the Christian idea of suffering. According Christian literature, if Job knew the truth "blessed are those who mourn", he would not wail and would be spiritually elated.
In Russian philosophy, the concept of immanentism represents a denial of transcendent values, and in modern European philosophy, Charles Taylor introduces the notion of "closed world", or "horizontal" world, i.e. the world, that excludes the transcendental and make it unthinkable for its inner structure. Taylor connects the concept of the closed world with the idea of death of God, according to which the ultimate horizon of man is man himself.
The understanding of the idea of the death of God as the realization of philosophy of immanentism reveals its true nature and consequences, the main of which is the idea of the death of man. The figure of the God ontologically provides the possibility of an anthropological phenomenon, that is, autonomous and free presence in the world of subjectivity. God, in his uniqueness, transcendence and absoluteness is the internal bond, which enable the chaos of subjectivity to line up in the order of consciousness. This allows the author to conclude that the mystery of anthropology, contrary to Feuerbach, lies in theology.
Keywords: death of God, death of man, consciousness, subjectivity, immanentism, the theological turn in philosophy, anthropology, post-metaphysics, sacred, atheism