Dispute about the Nature of Law

The article analyzes the conditions for a dialogue between Western and post-Soviet philosophy and theory of law on the nature of law (in terms of the first), or understanding of law (in terms of the second), which would create an opportunity for the organic inclusion of the “dispute about the nature of law” elements in the context of the discussion and solving issues relevant to the post-Soviet philosophy of law, including the shift of emphasis from the theoretical to the practical aspect of the problem of the nature of law. The research begins with a general description of the peculiarities of the “discourse of legal thinking (understanding of law)” inherent in post-Soviet jurisprudence and the identification of ontological and analytical criteria for classifying the types of understanding of law (natural law, positivist, sociological) as the basis for further convergence of post-Soviet and Western experience of understanding of law. Further, the meaning of the concept of validity of law in its social, moral and legal varieties for understanding the nature of law in general and the corresponding types of such understanding are revealed. In the final part, attention is drawn to the practical aspects of the study of the nature of law, carried out in the context of “extraordinary cases” existing on the verge of law and un-law. Further analysis reveals the methodological possibilities of comprehending the concept of law through the correlation with the counter-concept of “un-law” using examples: post-Soviet discussions about the relationship between law and statute, legal and non-legal law; Hegel’s concept of right and non-right; contemporary non-positivist approach by Robert Alexy in accordance with the criterion of the “limiting border” of law according to the Radbruch formula. The conclusions summarize the provisions on the general and distinctive features of the “discourse of the nature of law” and “discourse of understanding of law”, determine the prospects for their rapprochement.

Marxism as Spinozism? One episode in the history of Soviet philosophy

This paper seeks to reconstruct philosopher Aleksandr Bogdanov’s approach to the philosophy of Spinoza in the context of the debate against Plekhanov. I demonstrate that the Soviet interest in Spinoza’s theory has never been purely historical, but rather, it served an important function in developing the theoretical foundations for Marxist philosophy. However, Bogdanov was one of only a very few who objected strongly to Plekhanov’s attempt to relate Spinoza’s philosophy to Marxism in a direct way. Two principles underlie Bogdanov’s critique: one being methodological, the other—systematic. The methodological principle has a hermeneutical character, since it demands that we treat historical concepts by taking into account their context and their changes during the time. According to Bogdanov, failing to fulfil this principle results in the dogmatization and instrumentalization of philosophy, and transforms it into political doctrine. The systematic principle concerns Bogdanov’s radical rethinking of the relationship between extension and thought. I argue that by rethinking Spinoza’s concepts in the framework of “ideo-empirical parallelism”, Bogdanov develops his own theory of cognition, which he called “empiriomonism”. When considered in historical context, I argue that these debates can serve as a window into the foundational role the Spinoza’s philosophy has played in the formation of different versions of Russian Marxism, as well as in the development of Russian Marxism in general.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE RELIGIOUS AND PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL PARADIGM IN SOVIET PHILOSOPHY IN THE 20-40-IES YEARS OF THE XX CENTURY: HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS

Статья посвящена анализу эволюции религиозно-философской антропологической парадигмы в советской философии в 1920-1940-е гг. Данная парадигма занимала доминантное положение в отечественной интеллектуальной традиции с XI в. и до начала XX в. Ее последовательное развитие было прервано революцией 1917 г. и приходом к власти коммунистической партии, исповедующей материалистические взгляды. Однако на протяжении всего периода советской истории в «научном подполье» продолжалась работа по изучению актуальных проблем религиозной антропологии, представленная именами А.Ф. Лосева, А.А. Мейера, Г.И. Челпанова, Я.С. Друскина, М.М. Бахтина, К.Э. Циолковского и др. Обосновав взгляд на человека как богосотворенное бессмертное существо, призванное к обожению, философы-нонконформисты продолжили защиту религиозно-философской антропологической парадигмы как адекватной исследовательской модели, обладающей значительным эвристическим потенциалом. В статье реконструируются и анализируются базовые положения данной парадигмы: представления о сотворении человека, соотношении души и тела, свободы воли, смысла и назначения жизни, соотношении личности и общества. Делается вывод о том, что развитие религиозно-философской антропологической мысли в 1920-1940-е гг. определялось, с одной стороны, тенденцией к консервации ее смыслообразующих концептов, а с другой стороны, их творческим развитием с помощью заимствования отдельных идей марксистского учения. Вторая тенденция свидетельствовала о готовности части философов-идеалистов к межпарадигмальному диалогу, который был понят как «великий синтез неба и земли», способный поставить точку в противостоянии идеалистов и материалистов. Но в условиях тоталитарного режима указанная инициатива не имела шансов на успех. The article is devoted to the analysis of the evolution of the religious and philosophical anthropological paradigm in Soviet philosophy in the 1920-1940s. This paradigm occupied a dominant position in the domestic intellectual tradition from the 11th century to the beginning of the 20th century. Its consistent development was interrupted by the revolution of 1917 and the coming to power of the Communist Party, which professed materialistic views. However, throughout the entire period of Soviet history, work continued in the «scholarly underground» on the study of urgent problems of religious anthropology, which was carried out by A.F. Losev, A.A. Meyer, G.I. Chelpanov, Y.S. Druskin, M.M. Bakhtin, K.E. Tsiolkovsky, and many others. Having substantiated the view of man as a divine immortal being called to deification, nonconformist philosophers continued to defend the religious and philosophical anthropological paradigm as an adequate research model that has serious heuristic potential. The article reconstructs and analyzes the basic provisions of this paradigm: ideas on the origin of man, the correlation of soul and body, free will, the meaning and purpose of life, the relationship between the individual and society. It is concluded that the development of religious and philosophical anthropological thought in the 1920-1940-ies was determined, on the one hand, by the tendency to conserve its semantic concepts, and, on the other hand, by their creative development by borrowing certain ideas from Marxism. The second tendency testified to the readiness of some idealist philosophers for inter-paradigmatic dialogue, which was understood as a «great synthesis of heaven and earth». However, under the conditions of a totalitarian regime, this initiative did not have a chance of success.

SPECIFICITY AND FEATURES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF AESTHETICS IN THE UKRAINIAN SOVIET PHILOSOPHY IN THE 50-60s OF THE XX CENTURY

The article highlights the specificity of research in the field of aesthetics in the context of the development of Soviet philosophy in Ukraine in the 50-60s. XX century. There are three main vectors of scientific work: ideological works, original aesthetic developments and historical and aesthetic research. It is revealed that ideological aesthetic works were based on the concept of "positive aesthetics" by A. Lunacharsky, which contributed to the development of the concept of socialist realism, nationality of art by Ukrainian Soviet thinkers, as well as criticism of Western aesthetics and the approval of "Soviet aesthetics". It is shown that, unlike specifically ideological works, the original aesthetic developments were aimed not at substantiating certain provisions of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, but, as far as possible, creating new concepts and ideas in this branch of philosophical knowledge. It was revealed that in the context of historical and aesthetic research, in contrast to Russian researchers, Ukrainian scientists focused mainly on the development of the national tradition. It is proved that during the period under study, aesthetic problems, along with logic, methodology of science, philosophical problems of natural science, were one of the leading in Soviet Ukraine, thereby being one of its centers throughout the Soviet Union.

“The Last of the Mohicans of the Russian Thought”: Pavel S. Popov about Gustav G. Shpet. Popov, Pavel S. “Shpet, Publication by Angelina I. Semenova

The article is devoted to the analysis of the intellectual heritage of the famous Russian philosopher, literary scholar and translator Pavel Sergeevich Popov (1892-1964), whose works have been preserved in his family archive. The article precedes the publication of the chapter on Gustav Gustavovich Shpet from Popov’s unpublished memoirs Images of the Past. Memories from university, gymnasium and childhood years (P.S Popov began to write this book in the 1920s and finished in the 1940s). Popov's manuscript is primarily of historical and philosophical value, opening up new interesting pages for us in the history of domestic Russian thought in the first half of the 20th century. It allows to take a fresh look at both Popov and Shpet, clarifies the nuances of the relationshipbetween philosophers of that time, confirms the ideological and biographical as­sumptions of researchers (for example, about the existence of a typewritten ver­sion of the second volume of Shpet’s A View on the History of Russian philoso­phy»). In addition, thanks to these memories, various details of the intellectual life in the first half of the 20th century are discovered (including the internal ide­ological connections within the Psychological Society, and the intellectual at­mosphere of the “editing” of Shpet's translation of the G.W.F Hegel’s The Phe­nomenology of Spirit. The author defends on P.S. Popov’s archival materials the idea of the existence of a continuity between the philosophy of pre-revolu­tionary Russia and the Soviet period. Their link, according to the author, is the work of university philosophers (precisely, the generation that caught the inter­ruption of the pre-revolutionary and the formation of the Soviet philosophy: G.G. Shpet, P.S. Popov, B.A. Fokht, V.F. Asmus etc.), since the university style of thinking is, in principle, aimed at preserving and transmitting the historical in­tellectual experience of generations.

The ascent to methodology (To the prehistory of Moscow Methodological Circle)

The paper is about the roots of one of the most impressive phenomena of Russian XX century thought, the Moscow Methodological Circle (MMC) for almost forty years led by G. P. Schedrovitsky. It is based on three hypotheses: (1) the development of the school took place as constructivization, operationalization and instrumentalization of Hegelian and Marxian logic the return to serious study thereof in the Soviet philosophy was connected to the name of E. V. Ilyenlov, (2) the key role in this movement was played by the thesis of A. A. Zinovyev on the “method of ascension from abstract to concrete” in the Capital by K. Marx, and (3) the main novelty of Zinovyev was his rejection of the principle of identity of thought and being, which is a sort of second (after Kant) “Copernican revolution” in thinking. The main body of the paper is a synopsis of the first chapter of the mentioned thesis of Zinovyev with our comments showing how seminal ideas of Zinovyev develop into a huge tree of the methodology of Schedrovitsky and the MMC. There is a comprehensive list of texts by Schedrovitsky, published and archival, which should be further studied to reconstruct the history of the MMC. In the end of the paper one of the controversial question is discussed – on the nature of an act of thinking (based on the texts by V. V. Davydov, a psychologist of the same mental circle, and on comments to it by Schedrovitsky).