Gonotskaya N. —
Can philosophy be autonomous in the XXI century?
// Philosophy and Culture. – 2020. – ¹ 1.
– P. 63 - 70.
DOI: 10.7256/2454-0757.2020.1.32018
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/fkmag/article_32018.html
Read the article
Abstract: This article discusses the image of philosophy in modern world in the context of synthesis of the various intellectual and cultural traditions. The author explores the correlation between philosophy and politics, knowledge and power as a certain discursive practice that in an organic part of Western European culture; demonstrates the limits on establishing dialogue between philosophical traditions, schools and strands of thought. Leaning on the ideas of Kant and Foucault in viewing the phenomenon of Enlightenment, the author analyzes the role and place of a philosopher in the political and intellectual environment. The procedure of double sample realized by the philosopher holds the risk of losing its position on the pedestal taken by intellectualism and serve ideology instead, since orientation towards socially-pragmatic actions inevitably requires involvement into a political game. It demands conscious demarcation of the two types of decisions made: on the one hand, it is an existential choice pertinent to the held by philosopher intellectual position; while on the other – a socially-pragmatic, associated with interval choices, not affecting the ultimate grounds of existence. Due to the fact that preservation of the autonomy of philosophical territory in the era of globalization is an acute problem, there is a need for extremely cautious attitude to any attempts of shifting traditions and cultures, which usually assign primary role to the “philosophical reason”.
Gonotskaya N. —
The idea of desubstantial "Self" and the principle of temporality
// Philosophical Thought. – 2019. – ¹ 2.
– P. 36 - 41.
DOI: 10.25136/2409-8728.2019.2.28811
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/fr/article_28811.html
Read the article
Abstract: This article touches upon issues related to the possibility of maintaining the unity of self-consciousness in the temporal continuity, the difference between self-identification and self-consciousness, as well as the role of the subject in the process of self-constructing. Modernity provides a large number of technologies for self-identification. They create a simplified image of self-consciousness: self-awareness is understood as a thing endowed with certain qualities. Their disadvantage is not only that they offer a simplified, schematic view of an individual, a pattern into which much, if not all, can fit. These self-identification technologies are often misunderstood, identified with the process of self-consciousness. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish the procedures of self-identification and the process of self-consciousness, ― it does not lend itself to patterns. Self-identification is a technological process. Self-consciousness is an intuitive-interpretive activity, not a discursive one. The article presents the desubstantivist concept of “Self”, demonstrates the need for introduction of temporality into the concept of “Self”, how self-conscious activity unfolds in time, what is its specificity, and how it differs from the procedure for self-identification.
Gonotskaya N., Garadzha N.V. —
“Fundamental ontology”: language, word, name
// Philosophical Thought. – 2017. – ¹ 11.
– P. 40 - 46.
DOI: 10.25136/2409-8728.2017.11.24417
URL: https://en.e-notabene.ru/fr/article_24417.html
Read the article
Abstract: This article analyzes some approaches towards comprehension of language in the West and Russian philosophy of the XX century. In particular, the authors compare the linguistic and philosophical approaches to the examination of language; highlight the characteristic features of philosophical method; and demonstrate the implementation process of the ontology of language in the Western European philosophy and the Russian philosophy of name. Special attention is given to the peculiarity of philosophical symbolism of S. Bulgakov, not only as one of the components of the Russian tradition of onomatodoxy (Imiaslavie), but also in the extensive context – with reference to the Western concepts of language. The comparative analysis of “fundamental ontology” (M. Heidegger and S. Bulgakov) allowed revealing their common grounds and demonstrate the drastic distinction. It consists in the fact that the “fundamental ontologies” have different foundations. Unlike the Heidegger’s ontology, penetrated with the “tragic godforsakeness”, the ontology of onomatodoxy (Imiaslavie) finds its grounds in the God-Absolute, who endows with meaning the reality represented through the name-symbol. The absolute ground, symbolically reflected in the name of God, is the existential support for a human inquiring about life. The name acquires a special ontological status: it is not just a symbol that represents reality, but the reality itself that comes to existence through the process of philosophical cognition. Thus, philosophical cognition is simultaneously an instrument, which helps to comprehend the truth of existence, and the condition of possibility of its origination.