This article is devoted not only to Losev''sphilosophical works, but also to his fiction,which he created during 1930s and 1940s.Losev''s eight books of the 1920s (his``octateuch'''') combine into a single whole thatamounts to his philosophy of life and historydepicted in expressive images. At the same timeLosev''s ``octateuch'''' strikes one as having beenwritten at a single sitting and in a singlestyle, in a genre that can be identified as the``philosophical novel'''' having as much right asSpengler''s opus to be called (...) an ``intellectualnovel.'''' In his prose of the 1930s and 1940sLosev tries with artistic methods to resolvethe philosophical problems which he raised inhis works of the 1920s. Losev''s ``octateuch'''' andhis fiction are directed against thosecontemporary materialists who seek to embodyPlato''s Republic, whom he christens``soil-less nihilist idealist utopians.'''' All ofthis leads to the conclusion that Losev''sintellectual novel belongs to a definite andmore specific subgenre. It is undoubtedly ananti-utopia, full of the grotesque. In additionto its scientific and social orientation,Losev''s anti-utopia is also religious innature. Thus Losev not only depicts the realconsequences of utopian dreams, but also turnsto the ``life of the artist,'''' which is far fromany technological or social utopias but isfilled with another, no less terrifying ornihilistic utopia: that of the non-religiousexistence of the human person. Losev preservedhis anti-utopian and anti-nihilist viewsthrough his late period (1950s–1980s), despitethe care he took not to cross Sovietcensorship. Losev''s anti-utopia is the kind ofChristian realism to which he appealedthroughout his life. (shrink)

Die Philosophie des Mythos, imwesentlichen eine Aktualisierung deraltrussisch-byzantinischen Seinsauffassung undeines Verständnisses von Philosophie alsTheologie, spielt im Kontext sowjetischerKultur die Rolle eines sowohlmodernekritischen, als auch antimodernenDenkansatzes. Durch ihn wird kulturkritischnicht bloß die sowjetische Moderne, sonderndie gesamte europäisch-neuzeitlicheEntwicklung, als deren Quintessenz diesowjetische Moderne aufgefaßt und als derenAusgangspunkt die Renaissance angenommen wird,prinzipiell in Frage gestellt.

Aleksej Losev''s definition of myth centres onthe concept of detachment. In modern timesdetachment has most often figured in thecontext of philosophical aesthetics, where itis a cognitive category akin to Kant''s``disinterestedness'''' or the Russian formalists''``estrangement.'''' However Losev''s usage alsomakes reference to the ontological sense ofdetachment as contemplativeascent (cf. Meister Eckhardt''sAbgeschiedenheit). Thus, Losev''s concept ofmyth combines both senses of detachment,binding perceptual attitude and being togetherin a double movement of resignation from theworld and union with meaning; this movementliterally makes (...) sense out of reality. Ittherefore bears comparison to the treatment ofdistanciation in contemporary hermeneutics,where detachment is a key condition ofunderstanding. By investigating Losev''sconnections to other Russian thinkers, theauthor makes a case for a distinct Russiantradition of hermeneutic philosophy (V. Ivanov,G. Shpet, A. Bakshy, A. Losev). (shrink)

Originally presented as the author's Habilitationsschrift--Mèunster, 1985.

In the course of his collaboration with GAKhN, whose task was to create a systemic ‘scientific’ theory of art, Losev undertook a systematic interpretation of German classical aesthetics as the historical presupposition for his own Christian, Platonist doctrine of art conceived as a dialectical universe comprising totalizing connections at all levels. This interpretation was concealed in a masterful way within the ‘Commentaries’ to Dialektika khudožestvennoj formy. Independently of the significant results achieved by this revival of the classical tradition, (...) class='Hi'>Losev’s mythologized theory of art called forth a critical reaction on the part of his GAKhN colleagues and brought to light some of the broader theoretical attitudes present among GAKhN’s collaborators. (shrink)

The two names most closely associated with phenomenology in early twentieth century Russia are Gustav Špet and Aleksej Losev. However, is that judgment warranted with regard to Losev? In just what way can we look on him as a phenomenologist? Losev himself, in the mid-1920s, employed the expression “dialectical phenomenology,” seeing phenomenology as an initial descriptive method to ascertain essences. He was sharply critical of its self-limitation in disavowing all explanation as metaphysical. Yet, earlier that decade (...) Losev approved of Husserl’s opposition to reductionism and of his focus on essences and senses. In this way, the record is unclear: In the short span of a decade he moved from a position of qualified sympathy with phenomenology to an overtly unqualified insouciance. Looking at Losev’s criticisms, however, from the late 20s and early 30s, we find a logical anticipation of Husserl’s own move from a static to a genetic phenomenology. (shrink)

Slavoj iek's writings on Krzysztof Kies´lowski and Andrej Tarkovskij represent direct challenges to the Central and Eastern European tradition of spiritual art and to dominant aesthetic concepts as such. He refuses to separate the solemn films of Kies´lowski and Tarkovskij from popular culture and stresses their import as ethical statements by their directors. Despite this ethical emphasis, iek makes an important contribution to philosophical aesthetics. He implicitly defines art as a suspension of reality which reveals time in its fragility and (...) potentiality. Defining iek's aesthetics in terms of suspension helps to explain his partiality for Kies´lowski and Tarkovskij and bears comparison to the Russian tradition of philosophical aesthetics, in particular Aleksej Losev and Alexander Bakshy. (shrink)

This is a review of Teresa Obolevitch's Faith and Science in Russian Religious Thought, which provides an intellectual history of the collaboration between fides and ratio in the course of the development of Russian thought, from its Byzantine origins to the twenty-first century. Obolevitch examines various approaches to combining faith and science in such eighteenth-century thinkers as Mikhail Lomonosov and Gregory Skovoroda, the nineteenth-century thinkers Victor Kudryavtsev-Platonov, Dimitrii Golubinsky, Sergei Glagolev, the Schellingian Peter Chaadaev, the Slavophiles Alexei Khomyakov and Ivan (...) Kireevsky, the writers Fedor Dostoevsky and Lev Tolstoy, Vladimir Soloviev, the twentieth-century philosophers Nikolai Lossky, Pavel Florensky, Semen Frank, Nikolai Berdyaev, Lev Shestov, Sergius Bulgakov, Alexei Losev, the Russian Cosmists Nikolai Fedorov, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, and Vladimir Vernadsky, and the Orthodox priest Georges Florovsky. The book ends with considerations on the Neo-Patristic synthesis of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. In the present review, I situate the book in the context of the author's works, I summarize it, editorializing occasionally, and I discuss the thesis of the book in the wider context of world religions. (shrink)

Only now can we consider that the question of genuine mythical detachment has been fully clarified. We remember how difficult it was to find the true root of this detachment. We compared mythical detachment with general material detachment and poetic detachment but could not find a satisfactory answer anywhere. All the time we have faced a difficult task: to synthesize the sensuousness, extreme con-creteness, and purely material corporeality of myth with its otherworldly, fabulous, and generally acknowledged "unreal" character. After many (...) attempts we have only now finally found this genuine synthesis in the concept of miracle. Miracle is thus an absolutely necessary dialectical synthesis by which mythical consciousness lives and without which myth itself would not exist. From this point of view, myth's relation to other areas of human creativity also appears in a new light. (shrink)

The Five Greatest Kinds discussed in Plato‘s Sophist are taken to be just one instance of a fivefold structure found in various related texts. Contemporary linguistic theories are a source for ideas about its functioning.

Четвертая работа из знаменитого восьмикнижия Лосева "Диалектика художественной формы", представляет собой изложение эстетической теории, созданной автором с "привлечением диалектического метода".

Membranous organelles allow sub‐compartmentalization of biological processes. However, additional subcellular structures create dynamic reaction spaces without the need for membranes. Such membrane‐less organelles (MLOs) are physiologically relevant and impact development, gene expression regulation, and cellular stress responses. The phenomenon resulting in the formation of MLOs is called liquid–liquid phase separation (LLPS), and is primarily governed by the interactions of multi‐domain proteins or proteins harboring intrinsically disordered regions as well as RNA‐binding domains. Although the presence of RNAs affects the formation and (...) dissolution of MLOs, it remains unclear how the properties of RNAs exactly contribute to these effects. Here, the authors review this emerging field, and explore how particular RNA properties can affect LLPS and the behavior of MLOs. It is suggested that post‐transcriptional RNA modification systems could be contributors for dynamically modulating the assembly and dissolution of MLOs. (shrink)

In his speech Academician Fedorov expressed the opinion that the political and ideological meaning of the problem of interaction between man and nature is fundamental for our conference.

t. 1. Rasshiri︠a︡i︠u︡shchai︠a︡si︠a︡ vselennai︠a︡ absoli︠u︡ta -- t. 2. Kosmo-antropo-sot︠s︡io-prirodogenez cheloveka -- t. 3. Antropologicheskai︠a︡ istoriosofii︠a︡.

Battles of the First World War were accompanied by what was the first full-scale war of words in European history. It was aimed at influencing the public opinion abroad as well as at mobilizing the population at home. Leading intellectuals, including famous scholars, participated in propaganda campaigns waged by the belligerent nations. This text focuses on the discussions between philosophers involved in the international conflict.

This article reports on developing and evaluating a generic Handwritten Text Recognition (HTR) model created for the automatic computer-assisted transcription of Ukrainian handwriting publicly available via the HTR platform Transkribus. The model’s training process encompasses diverse datasets, including historical manuscripts by renowned poets Taras Shevchenko and Lesya Ukrainka, along with private correspondence used for the General Regionally Annotated Corpus of Ukrainian (GRAC) and a diary procured at the Holodomor Museum collection. We evaluate the model’s performance by comparing its theoretical accuracy, (...) with a character error rate (CER) of 4.2%, against its practical efficacy when augmented with an AI-based language model for Ukrainian and a Large Language Model. The model is versatile and functional and can thus be applied for mass-digitization of Ukrainian cultural heritage. In our outlook section, we identify possibilities for further improving the model. (shrink)

Of all the world thinkers on whom the author of The Philosophy of the Common Task [Filosofiia obshchego dela] reflected, the one to whom he devoted the most attention, thought, and passion was perhaps a contemporary of his who, though fifteen years his junior, had already thrown some "impossible" works in the face of a fascinated, flabbergasted, and shocked public and had lived for almost ten years outside the world of culture and history, in a state of complete insanity. I (...) speak, of course, of Friedrich Nietzsche. He burst into Russia as a deafening European intellectual novelty, which intoxicated and swept away quite a few young people and even some experienced wise heads with the audacity of his "transvaluation of all values," his prophetic eruptions of new ideas and life principles, his exciting style of free philosophizing, and, finally, his existential tragedy. Fedorov could not but have been sensitive to and, I would say, personally affected by this phenomenon-Nietzsche and Nietzscheanism and the fashion for them. (shrink)

The influence of Spengler on Wittgenstein's philosophical development is considered. The point of interest is in a significant methodological restructuring which it appears to have produced. After an initial over-enthusiastic reception, Wittgenstein is seen to object on some points which he attempted to emend in his own philosophy. Spengler's name disappeared inreworked manuscripts but traces persist in the Philosophical Investigations and an important section (§89-133) is found to be connected with it.

Audacity of the Spirit by A.F. Losev demonstrates the merits of the dialectical method to understand antiquity, history, culture and philosophy. The book is a guide to dialectics for beginners and a major philosopher's summing-up of his reflections to a general audience. It is an English translation from the Russian original Дерзание духа (Politizdat Moskva, 1988), translated by Peter R. Weisensel and Vitali I. Betaneli.

This paper argues that Marquis de Sade is a more original and relevant Enlightenment philosopher than it is commonly thought. We argue that de Sade is a notable author and a noteworthy naturalist thinker in contemporary times as well, concerning modern science, organized religion, (homo)sexuality, political violence and prevalent sociocultural norms. In order to demonstrate these claims, we thoroughly analyse de Sadeʼs philosophies of naturalism and materialism, i.e., his metaphysics and his radical ethics of “immorality”, based on viewing (human) Nature (...) as a sole organizing, creative and destructive principle. Furthermore, we detail his atheist and anti-theistic arguments, which he consistently uses to reject the possibility of a God and all supernatural beings, coupled with his social and political criticism of a faith-based society. Thus, we outline the philosophical arguments that made him a controversial, infamous and denounced thinker, and which socially distanced him from the prevailing philosophical milieu. We also argue for the possibility that he deserves a more prominent place in the history of philosophy which is not congruent with the various “rehabilitative” and “revisionist” narratives regarding de Sade as an early champion of the Counter-Enlightenment, anti-science and postmodernism. (shrink)