Ad marginem Debates: on the Archive Materials of the Department’s Discussions

 
PIIS004287440001150-0-1
DOI10.31857/S004287440001150-0
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: chief research fellow at the Department of Theory of Knowledge
Affiliation: Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameVoprosy filosofii
EditionIssue 10
Pages20-30
Abstract

The article presents some peculiarities of Theory of Knowledge Department’s intellectual life in the Institute of Philosophy (from 1977, before – “dialectical materialism”). “Debates on the margins” are doubts and questions on the sides of manuscripts that were in exchange between staff members of the Department before a collective discussion of someone’s work took place. The fragments of archive documents of N.N. Trubnikov and B.I. Pruzhinin (pencil drafts on pages’ margins and backs), that are given here, allow to judge not only on the style of writing and involvement in the text, but also about the topics, that have not lost their actuality: rationality, crisis of culture, syncretic formations in the dynamic of culture. The study of how conceptual disagreements experienced in the existential modus of human attachment, take part in the outputting of what could be called commensurability, the common problem field, has a special importance for us. Inside the Department controversial and even aporical took part in the thinking dynamic, although not all the moments of people and conception interaction could be marked logically. The Department’s space contained various peculiar configurations of personal conceptions (epistemology of “postmodernism”, that was considered either nonexistent, or nonimportant in all other places). The diversity of epistemological approaches and at the same time latent search of possible forms of harmonization between conceptual and human, in the face of all external context turns, makes the Department’s works and its lifeworld an actual object of modern philosophy and history of science.

Keywordsdiscussions, marginalia, the Department of Theory of Knowledge, epistemology, rationality, syncretism, the time of human being, postmodernism
Publication date23.11.2018
Cite   Download pdf To download PDF you should sign in
Размещенный ниже текст является ознакомительной версией и может не соответствовать печатной

views: 1663

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Avtonomova, Natalia S. (2009) ‘The paper of the three authors in the light of the experience of postmodernity: comparative notes’, Towards a nonclassical epistemology, IF RAN, Moscow (In Russian).

2. Avtonomova, Natalia S. (2011) ‘On the question of ghosts: Marx, Derrida and others’, Politicalphilosophical yearbook, 4, IF RAN, Moscow, pp. 134–154 (In Russian).

3. Lektorsky, Vladislav A. (2001) Epistemology is classical and non-classical, Editorial URSS, Moscow (In Russian).

4. Mudragei, Nelli S. (2002) Essays on the history of Western European irrationalism, Nauka, Moscow (In Russian).

5. Nikitin, Yevgeniy P. (2004) Spiritual world: an organic cosmos or a dispersing universe? ROSSPEN, Moscow (In Russian).

6. Pilshchikov, Igor A. (2012) ‘Unedited article Yu.M. Lotman’, Russian literature, 4 (2012), pp. 46–69 (In Russian).

7. Pruzhinin, Boris I. (2009) Ratio serviens? Contours of cultural and historical epistemology, ROSSPEN, Moscow (In Russian).

8. Pruzhinin, Boris I. (2018) ‘The Department of Theory of Knowledge as a Type of Philosophical Interaction, or on the Role of Knowledge in Culture’, Voprosy Filosofii, Vol. 10 (2018), pp. 13–19 (In Russian).

9. Shvyrev, Wladimir S. (2003) Rationality as the value of culture. Tradition and modernity, ProgressTraditsiya, Moscow (In Russian).

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up