Philosophy for Millions and Millions of Philosophers

In the article, the relationship between the highest professional specialization of philosophy and its involvement in the realities of everyday life consciousness, collective and individual, are considered. Karl Jaspers defines philosophy precisely through the natural need and ability of human being as such, from the piercing questions of children to the revelations of anomalous geniuses. Great philosophers only concentrate this sleeping ability in a person to see the world directly and every time anew. Rightly considered the most closed type of intellectual activity, philosophy at the same time provides examples of live communication and direct appeal to people and society. The fact that each of us is the bearer of philosophical ideas (whether we are aware of it or not) leads to the problem of ideology. By analogy with the constitution of the political by Carl Schmitt through the opposition "friend — enemy", ideology is constituted by the opposition of "faith — knowledge" in a single continuum between the poles of "almost religion" and "almost philosophy". If ideology asserts the non-obvious as obvious, then the mission of philosophy is a systematic criticism of the obvious. This conflict manifests itself both in society and in the consciousness of an individual. The classic understanding of ideology as a purely external manipulation (“consciousness for the Other”) is challenged by the presence in the consciousness of the individual subject of “internal dialogue” and “internal speech” with the effects of ideological work and ideological struggle with oneself (the individual as a micromodel of society and the state). Postmodern all the more accentuates the non-professional dimension of philosophy by rejecting the schemes of progress and hierarchy, the logic of binary oppositions, including high and low, center and marginal, specialized and amateur. The ability to reflect is the most important feature of a sovereign personality in its resistance to the "penetrating" ideology and new mythology, degrading to intellectual barbarism and political savagery.

Аmbiguous Temporality of Utopia

The article rejects the reading of Thomas More's Utopia as, first, a statement of More's own views on the ideal state and, accordingly, his definition not only as a humanist, but as a communist, and, secondly, an attempt is made to present the humanistic foundations of his ideas and ways of expressing them. These ways of expression are connected with the tropological way of his thinking, expressed through satire and irony, with an eye to ancient examples, which was characteristic of the philosophy, poetics and politics of humanism, one of the tasks of which was to try to build a new society (especially relevant in the period of geographical discoveries), architecture, an unprecedented ratio of natural objects (archimboldeski). The models for "Utopia" were the works of Plato, Lucian, and Cicero. It is written in the spirit of the times, with criticism of state structures, private property, the distinction between the private and the public, and openness to all ideas. Intellectual disorientation of readers is a specific creative task of More writer, his test of their ability to quickly change the optics, to consider history as an alternative world, radically different from our own, but connected with it. Thanks to an extremely pronounced intellectual tension, it goes beyond the limits of time, like the works of Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Marx... Utopia can be represented as a dystopia, if we take into account the performative nature of the latter, which contributes to the instantaneous translation of words into action, realizing the world of utopia. Dystopia is the answer to utopia with a change of sign: about the same thing, changing the optics, you can say "yes" and "no". This means that in the modern world, indeed, and for a long time, virtual consciousness becomes little different from the real one, and imagination replaces the theoretical position, acquiring its form, turning theory into fiction. A hypothesis is put forward about the presence of many utopian countries in" Utopia": Achorians, Polylerites, Macarians, Anemolians.

The Poetic and the Political in Valery Podoroga’s Analytical Anthropology

The article is devoted to an analysis of the creative work of the Russian philosopher Valery Podoroga. It focuses on the special discipline he created, namely, “analytical anthropology”, and the book “Anthropograms”, in which Valery Podoroga sets out the basic principles and analytical tools of his philosophical work. Examining the books of the philosopher that preceded the creation of analytical anthropology and those that were written later, it is possible to single out two important lines of his research. First, the philosophy of literature and second, research in the field of the political. Podoroga’s understanding of literature is broader than that of a cultural practice or a social institution. For him, it is the space of the corporal experience of contact with the world, in which the affective aspect of thinking is realized. This line of analysis points to the “poetic” dimension of the experience of thinking, since the emphasis here is on what Jakobson called the “poetic function of language”, its orientation toward itself. It is precisely the literary aspect that becomes important when analyzing the texts of philosophers (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger); however, what is even more important is that in the very experience of fiction Podoroga is trying to find new means for philosophy. His “poetic line” is closely connected with the poetics of space (Bachelard) and the phenomenology of the body (Merleau-Ponty, Henry). It is the combination of poetics and phenomenology that allows Podoroga to overcome both the orientation of poetics exclusively toward language and the categorical apparatus of philosophy. The main result of Valery Podoroga’s work is the creation of an “anthropogram”, a special kind of scheme in which the action of the Work (a literary work, but not only) is immanent to the dynamics of the world. Is it possible to create such anthropograms outside the field of literature? Podoroga does not specify. The article attempts to show how Podoroga’s ways of working with literary texts correlate with his works dealing with the technologies of power and violence, transforming separate political and ethical terms into anthropograms, that is, forms of thought immanent to life itself.

From Analytical Аnthropology to Generative Anthropology

This article discusses the role of the technical in V.A. Podoroga's project of studying the literature worlds as archives of human experience. On the level of content, among many other components of these worlds he distinguished working and non-working machines, “gizmos” and various optical devices, including the mechanic eye, camera, mounting, etc. Formally, the action of these machines can be assessed as alienation, though in the context of modern media studies and exploration of the perspectives of anthropology, they can also be described as a problematic contact zone between the human and non-human, with a bias towards breaking the already historically disrupted bodily-affective interaction with the “outside”. Studies of Andrei Platonov's show the most radical interaction with the technical, in this case causing dissimilation of the human. However, even for this “inhuman” material, Podoroga chooses a form of human-measured approximation and distancing, which allows defending the position of an active researcher, observer, anthropologist. His efforts produce a kind of reconstruction, which at a certain time distance reveals the “seams”, “folds”, “cuts”, “plexuses”, “gaps” that formed at once the experience of the body and experience of writing. This is how the components of literature worlds are extracted, and from them “a picture of the universe can be deduced”. Although an external position to technics is considered to be the only guarantee of the human, even if it is strange, symptomatic, seizure-like, a different understanding of the technical is possible. Without claiming that a “machine” can assemble components in the absence of the observer's (reader's) comprehension ability, it seems nevertheless possible to relate the technical to more general principles: the methods of dispersion and gathering that form the form, the principles of intervalization and binding the heterogeneous, and most importantly, the principle of generating conditions for detecting an event. Then it will be necessary to clarify the relationship between techne and literature in the broader sense of poiesis, in the process of which elements can be formed from the indivisible “compressed”.