Library
|
Your profile |
Philosophy and Culture
Reference:
Gurevich, P. S.,Nilogov, A. S.
The ‘Fork’ of Philosophical Anthropology (Conversation of A. Nilogov with P. Gurevich)
// Philosophy and Culture.
2014. ¹ 8.
P. 1197-1207.
URL: https://en.nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=65400
Gurevich, P. S.,Nilogov, A. S. The ‘Fork’ of Philosophical Anthropology (Conversation of A. Nilogov with P. Gurevich)Abstract: The conversation of A. Nilogov with P. Gurevich is devoted to the modern trends in Russian philosophical anthropology. They talk about works written by V. Kutyrev, F. Girenokand other philosophers. Each author maintains his own definite position in philosophical understanding of human. V. Kutyrev, for example, shows himself as a consistent critic of innovationism as it was introduced in trans-humanism. V. Kutyrev proves that modern culture demonstrates the death instinct and this creates a threat for the humanity. F. Girenok holds himself as anarcheo-avantgardist and offers his own variants of the concepts that have been formed in philosophy and reflect interpretations of human. In their discussion A. Nilogov and P. Gurevich used the methods of historical analysis allowing to define trends in philosophical anthropology. They also applied the hermeneutic approach that allows to interpret the current situation in Russian philosophical anthropology. The novelty of the discussion is that the participants of the discussion tried to understand current trends in philosophy that are related to human, to discover the main issues of philosophy, to compare different positions and to clarity the meaning of polemic arguments. A. Nilogov and P. Gurevich noted that the range of issues under discussion should be expanded and historical fates of Russian philosophy should be discussed as well as possible influence of philosophy on modern elites. Keywords: philosophy, philosophical anthropology, human, death instinct, fiction, ‘death of human’, insanity, transhumanism, technology project, cyborg.
This article can be downloaded freely in PDF format for reading. Download article
References
1. Nordau M. Vyrozhdenie. M., 1995. S. 214.
2. Kutyrev V.A., Nilogov A.S. Ob ekspansii vysokikh (postchelovecheskikh) tekhnologiy, ee perspektive, ikh tvortsakh i zhertvakh // NB: Filosofskie issledovaniya. 2014. ¹ 1. S. 164-202. (URL: http://e-notabene.ru/fr/article_10676.html). 3. Slavoy Zizec. Kant and Sade: the Ideal Couple // Lacanian Ink. N.Y., 1998. ¹ 13. P. 12-25. 4. Spektr antropologicheskikh ucheniy. Vypusk 6 / otv. red. P.S. Gurevich. M., 2014. 5. Spektr antropologicheskikh ucheniy. Vypusk 5 / otv. red. P.S. Gurevich. M., 2013. 6. Gurevich P.S. Filosofskaya interpretatsiya cheloveka. M., 2013. 7. Gurevich P.S., Bueva L.P., Egorova I.V. Nuzhna li nam ideologiya? Kruglyy stol // Vestnik analitiki. 2014. ¹ 1 (55). S. 99-120. 8. Gurevich P.S., Paleeva N.N. Filosofiya kul'tury. M., 2014. 9. Kutyrev V.A., Nilogov A.S. Pro et contra innovatsionizma: za sokhranenie antropomorfnoy realizatsii vozmozhnykh mirov // Filosofiya i kul'tura. 2014. ¹ 2 (74). S. 180-189. 10. Gurevich P.S. Lgat' ili ne lgat' – vot v chem vopros // Filologiya: nauchnye issledovaniya. 2012. ¹ 3 (07). S. 38-56. 11. Gurevich P.S. Psikhoanaliz lichnosti. M., 2012. 12. Gurevich P.S. Psikhoanaliz: V 2-kh t. M., 2013. 13. B'yukenen Patrik Dzh. Smert' Zapada. M., 2004. 14. Vysheslavtsev B.P. Etika preobrazhennogo Erosa. Chto takoe ya Sam? M., 2002. 15. Gurevich P.S. Antropologicheskie i esteticheskie idei Fedora Girenka // Filologiya: nauchnye issledovaniya. 2012. ¹ 1 (05). S. 31-40. |