The paper focuses on the mutual interaction as well as the impact of the Scottish Enlightenment on the formation of the Enlightenment in Russia during the reign of Catherine the Great. It focuses on the relationship between the work of Adam Smith and Semyon Efimovich Desnitskii, who, thanks to Desnitskii’s studies at the University of Glasgow, got to know each other as teacher and student. The central point of their interaction is the issues of the philosophy of history based (...) on natural-law assumptions and focus on understanding the formation of history, culture, citizenship, and social transformations through morality and law. The paper examines Desnitskii’s ideas on the stages of human coexistence in which Smith’s concept is projected. The paper is not only an attempt to compare these concepts, but it also characterizes Desnitskii’s interest in adapting the ideas of the Scottish Enlightenment to Russian reality and needs and using them in the environment of the advancing feudal empire, to which Desnitskii wants to contribute with his work. (shrink)

The article dealt with the question of the ratio of Yuri Mamleev’s I-utrism to Tradition. The problem is in the contradiction between two positions, which Mamleev notes in different places of “The Destiny of Being” – a view of the I-utrism as a new approach within the framework of Tradition, and as going beyond it with the introduction of extraneous elements. Based on the connection between the I-utrism and the “Last Doctrine”, which clearly lies outside the Tradition, the author of (...) the article concludes that the I-utrism should not be considered as a new approach within the framework of the Tradition, but as an autonomous construction to it. According to the author, the I-utrism due to its own radicalism contains two key problems that lead not only to a break with Tradition but also to a violation of the inner integrity of Mamleev’s philosophy itself. These two problems are defined as the radicalization of the Vedanta formula “Atman = Brahman” and the absence of the figure of the Other. I-utrism forms unified I, which the author of the article proposes to call “I-total”, because it displaces everything but itself, including the classical concept of the Absolute. Hence the lack of a topos for Mamleev’s concepts such as “Abyss” and “Eternal Russia”. It is compounded by the prevention of the metaphysical event of the Other, which is especially important for the idea of a metaphysical and mysterious Russia that requires intersubjectivity. In the process of analyzing these problems and issues, the article compares the philosophical positions of Stirner and Mamleev, as well as addresses the topic of demonic I-utrism. After all, the author concludes that the I-utrism needs to be revised and softened. This would allow it to exist organically in the overall picture of Mamleev’s worldview and not lose touch with Tradition despite the inevitable exit from it. (shrink)

The author of the article studies the creative legacy of Yuriy Mamleev, trying to establish the correlation between of his philosophical and fiction writings. The conventional editorial distinction between philosophical and literary texts as different and autonomous categories is rejected. Instead of the idea, that philosophical and fictional aspects of texts by Mamleev are inextricably linked, it is claimed that they should be considered together. In the author’s opinion, these texts present different perspectives and implementations of his oeuvre that contains (...) the rational dimension and on the other hand – irrational dimension of artistic images and obscure allusions. Mamleev’s writings considered by means of 5 crucial “metathemes”: Аbyss and the “Ultimate relationships” concerned with it, the Mystery which has two levels – one cognizable and the another – uncoognizable in principal, the “root of self-being” and metaphysic of “I”, death and immortality, Russia and the Russian soul which are existed between West and East with special historical and cosmological mission. It is concluded that these 5 metathemes pervade all Mamleev’s texts and comprise his spiritual search. The characters of Mamleev’s fiction are mostly people of post-Soviet world, who ask questions with no set answers to become acquainted with the secrets of being. At the same time they are concerned with their own existence, their self destiny. Their actions are extraordinary and illogical. Supposedly Mamleev’s artistic images not only correspond with his philosophical ideas, for instance – utrism or the “Ultimate relationships”, but also reveal them from unexpected perspective. The author determines that distinction between philosophy and literature of Mamleev is incorrect, as these areas are conflated. Any distinction of this kind will ruin the logic of Mamleev’s thinking and outlook. Thus, metaphysical realism can be viewed as the crossing, distinction blurring area, productive and creative transgression. Or as the situation when philosophy is more than it is itself. (shrink)

The article examines the role and place of the Mystery within the structure of Mamleev’s metaphysics. The author of the article implicates the concept of “chaosmos’’, introduced by James Joyce in the experimental novel “Finnegans Wake”, to the Mamleev’s Universe. This leads to the transformation of the formula “chaos – osmosis – cosmos”, actualized by postmodern discourse, into the formula “Chaos – Osmosis – Cosmos”. Chaos here is Sacred Chaos, being one of the metaphysical manifestations of Eternal Russia. Osmosis appears (...) to be an antinomic Russian life, which combines the incompatible, and sets itself fundamentally impossible tasks. The Сosmos brings us to the tradition of Russian cosmism with its problem of microcosm and macrocosm conformity. The author of the article points out that the all-pervading and unifying element of Mamleev’s chaos is the Mystery. It is one of the five key metathemes of Mamleev’s oeuvre. The particularity of the Mystery is that it provides a link between other metathemes: utrism “I”, Death, the Abyss and Russia. In the plane of utrism “I” the Mystery is seen as the mystery of man. The Mystery is related to Death by the person’s interest of his own destiny and finiteness. The problem of overcoming death and the passion for eternal life are the central themes that concern almost all the heroes of Mamleev’s novels and short stories. For Mamleev they are the source of values aimed at the human need to achieve a higher “I”. The connection between the Mystery and the Abyss, as well as the connection between the Mystery and Russia are the strongest and the most important for Mamleev. Consideration of these connections prompts the author to conclude that Yuri Mamleev describes such dimensions of the Mystery, which go beyond the categories “unfathomable-to-us” and “unfathomable-in-itself”, introduced by S. Frank. This requires the introduction of new concepts that would bring out the essence of Mamleev’s innovations. The author of the article proposes to consider the Abyss as a “Last Mystery” by the fact it is transcendent to the transcendents themselves, that is it goes beyond the Absolute, as well as to consider Eternal Russia as a Russia-Mystery on the grounds that Mamleev gives it the status of the third metaphysical Beginning, along with the Absolute and the Abyss. (shrink)

We apply Benacerraf’s distinction between mathematical ontology and mathematical practice to examine contrasting interpretations of infinitesimal mathematics of the seventeenth and eighteenth century, in the work of Bos, Ferraro, Laugwitz, and others. We detect Weierstrass’s ghost behind some of the received historiography on Euler’s infinitesimal mathematics, as when Ferraro proposes to understand Euler in terms of a Weierstrassian notion of limit and Fraser declares classical analysis to be a “primary point of reference for understanding the eighteenth-century theories.” Meanwhile, scholars like (...) Bos and Laugwitz seek to explore Eulerian methodology, practice, and procedures in a way more faithful to Euler’s own. Euler’s use of infinite integers and the associated infinite products are analyzed in the context of his infinite product decomposition for the sine function. Euler’s principle of cancellation is compared to the Leibnizian transcendental law of homogeneity. The Leibnizian law of continuity similarly finds echoes in Euler. We argue that Ferraro’s assumption that Euler worked with a classical notion of quantity is symptomatic of a post-Weierstrassian placement of Euler in the Archimedean track for the development of analysis, as well as a blurring of the distinction between the dual tracks noted by Bos. Interpreting Euler in an Archimedean conceptual framework obscures important aspects of Euler’s work. Such a framework is profitably replaced by a syntactically more versatile modern infinitesimal framework that provides better proxies for his inferential moves. (shrink)